REPORT OF THE 
Special Committee to Visit 
-Pminceton Theological Seminary 
as _ TO THE ee 
General Assembly — 
OF THE 


‘PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
; SO INJTHE Uh S.A. a 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


’ MAY, 1927 


one) 


~ 


J/ ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
514 WITHERSPOON BUILDING : :; PHILADELPHIA 
















CONTENTS 


Page 
Report of the Goniuiites SEER WEE AER CE OES ANN hin Sars IGE ae 1-50 
J. Alumni of the Seminary... 5 ccccccepcinapeseetititers ere 2 
IT Faculty of the Seminary ici)... irae liaceceeetesaieseenrenen 7 
AGHANISUPATION 3385 y ee eee a Se De daa cee 9 
Administration Of Funds 2 ico lechcsundkiteaeena 11 
Whe. Boards and: Agencies. sic. sot iain enlaces 11 
PEE EE DOA OF LIIVECLOTS,. gael an 16 
f V5 The-Boartt ci Prupteesss Ans. ee ha hs oe Lage 17 
Veo Phe: Student Cabinet..co 22. ooh heres Scene 17 
VI. — Efforts of Farlier Assembliese....cccc ccc cccccccctessssssseseseeees 18 
Concluding Summary of Findings... cece 47 
Riesommendationse oo ae eee 49 
Appendix to the Report of the Committee... 51-187 
Written Statement of President Stevenson... OL 
Written Statement of the Majority of the Faculty? Biot 60 
Extract from the Minutes of the Faculty... 82 
Written Statement by Dr. John McDowell...0ouuuc....... 85 
Verbal Statement of Dr. John Dixon. §=—88 
Verbal Statement of Mr. W. P. Stevenson... 92 
Written Statement of the Majority of the Board of 
Directors: Se ee ee a Gin epee ree ee 93 
Verbal Statement of Dr. John M. T. Finney....000000000...... 97 
Verbal Statement of Dr. George Alexander...coccc. 98 
Verbal Statement of Dr. Wallace Radcliffe. «99 
Létterot: Rev::-PaulVilartim: 32" ses eh 102 
Written Statement of Dr. Gresham Machen... oc... 106 
Written Statement of Dr. Oswald T. Allis. ce 119. 
Written Statement of Dr. William P. Armstrong........... 121 
Extracts from Interlocutory Discussion of Committee 
with: Pacul ty so es ea a ne ee 134 
Verbal Statement of Dr. J. Ritchie Smith 150 
Verbal Statement of Dr. Frederick W. Loetscherv.............. 153 


Verbal Statement of President Stevenson... ccc. 158 
Further Extracts from Interlocutory Discussion of , 
Committee with, Faculte serine ga eer: 168 


Standing Rule 29 


OF THE 


General Assembly 


29. All reports of Special and other 
Committees. shall be delivered to the 
Stated Clerk on or before April 1, in each 
year, shall be printed by him, and copies 
shall be sent, in bound form, to Commis- 
sioners, so far as practicable, immediately 
upon notification of their election; and 
copies shall also be delivered to the 
Assembly on the second day of the ses- 
sions. 

All reports included in the above bound 
form are thereby released for public 
comment or quotation, but such release 
does not preclude subsequent changes in 
any report before its presentation to the 
_ General Assembly. | 


Bees oS PRA Sarees 
Presbyterian Church in the 
U.S.A. General Assembly. 
Report of the special 
committee to visit 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/reportofspecialcOOpres 


REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO VISIT 
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


The Committee appointed by the last General Assembly 
in Baltimore, May, 1926, begs to submit the following report: 

On June 2, 1926, the General Assembly, pursuant to report 
from the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, 
adopted the following resolution: “That the Assembly 
appoint a Committee of three ministers and two elders to 
make a sympathetic study of conditions affecting the welfare 
of Princeton Seminary and to co-operate responsively with 
Seminary leaders in striving to adjust and harmonize differ- 
ences and to report to the next Assembly.’’ (Mins., 1926, 
Part:1, pe 174:) 

The Assembly voted that the Moderator, Rev. William O. 
Thompson, D.D., LL.D., should be the Chairman of the 
Committee on Princeton Theological Seminary and should 
appoint the other four additional members of the Committee 
authorized by the Assembly. (Mins., 1926, Part I, p. 257.) 

Pursuant to the action above cited, the Moderator ap- 
pointed as additional members of the Committee, Rev. 
George N. Luccock, D.D., Wooster, Ohio; Rev. Walter L. 
Whallon, D.D., Newark, N. J.; Hon. Thomas E. D. Bradley, 
Chicago, Ill., and Hon. Richard P. Ernst, Covington, Ky. 

The Committee recognizes with profoundest gratitude, as 
no doubt this Assembly does, the distinguished service ren- 
dered to the church by Princeton Theological Seminary in 
the preparation of men for the ministry. Since 1812, this 
Seminary has been the source of a gratifying satisfaction and 
has enjoyed the confidence of the entire Church; the honored 
names appearing in the Faculty during the past century sup- 
ported by a long list of the most devoted men of the Church, 
both in management and in providing endowments, might 
well challenge the admiration of all interested in the prepara- 
tion of men for the sacred office of the ministry. 

Princeton has always been a center of sound, conservative 
and evangelical theology. The present Faculty is a body of 
men affirming their loyalty to the Standards of the Church. 
The Committee has no reason to doubt these affirmations. 
The Committee entered upon its task with the full recognition 
of the high character of the men now in the Faculty. It has 
no desire to leave any other impression on the mind of the 
Assembly or of the Church-at-large. The Committee ex- 
presses the hope that the Assembly will consider this report 
as an effort to reconcile existing differences and to provide a 

3 


t 


method of administration consistent with the best interests 
of the Seminary. 

The Committee invites the attention of the Assembly to the 
documents, letters and other statements printed in the 
appendix. These constitute, in some measure, the basis from 
which the recommendations of the report have been drawn. 
It should be added that the Committee has a complete tran- 
script in typewritten form of all the hearings, amounting to 
some 800 pages, not including documentary exhibits. These 
hearings were so extended and the interviews so intimate and 
personal that it seemed both impossible and undesirable to 
submit all of them in printed form as an appendix. If neces- 
sity arises, however, reference can be made to this transcript 
for the purpose of interpretation or of showing the existing 
differences, or to confirm the opinions of the Committee ex- 
pressed in this report. ‘The Committee sought in these in- 
timate hearings to discover the state of mind and the attitude 
of mind of Faculty, Directors and ‘Trustees as accounting for, 
or affecting, the divergence of views as set out in the docu- 
mentary statements presented in the appendix. 

The Committee held its first meeting in Princeton, N. J., 
November 22, 23 and 24, 1926. All members were present. 
After an informal conference as to the method of procedure, 
it was decided to meet representatives of the Alumni of the 
Seminary on the evening of the 22nd, the Faculty on the 
morning of the 23rd, the Directors and Trustees on the after- 
noon of the 28rd, leaving opportunity for conferences with 
the representatives of the Student Cabinet and further 
sessions with any of the above, subject to the convenience of 
the program. ‘Two sessions with the Faculty were held 
during this meeting of the Committee. 

A statement by the Chairman of the Committee was read 
to all these several sessions in order that certain questions 
might be eliminated, and that the issues could be made entirely 
clear. 


I. The Alumni of the Seminary 


The first meeting of the Assembly’s Committee with the 
different groups of Princeton Seminary was with the Alumni, 
who accepted the Committee’s invitation to be present at a 
hearing in Stuart Hall, Monday evening, November 22, 1926, 
at 8 o'clock. Approximately 125 were present. In view of 
the fact that there are some 3,000 alumni, this may not seem 
to have been a very representative group. However, one 
had journeyed from Boston, and two from California were 
present, which indicates that the Alumni had been given 
due notice of the hearing, and many more could have been 


5 


present if sufficiently concerned. Representatives from the 
Alumni Associations of New York, Baltimore and Phila- 
delphia, with their large membership, were present, and in- 
dividuals prompted by personal interest. It was unques- 
tionably a group fairly representative of the Alumni Asso- 
ciation. 

Letters also were received from Alumni groups of Chicago 
and Detroit, and communications from individuals were read 
or filed with the Committee. 

A statement was read to the Alumni by the Chairman, 
who reviewed the action of the Assembly in authorizing the 
appointment of the Committee to visit Princeton Seminary, 
and to confer with Seminary leaders in an endeavor to adjust 
and harmonize existing differences. Those who desired to be 
heard were requested to speak to two definite issues: 

(1) What are the difficulties existing in the Princeton 
Theological Seminary? 

(2) What remedy have you to propose for these difficulties? 


The meeting disclosed, as the records will show, a deep 
cleavage among the Alumni, regarding first, the function of 
the Seminary—that is to say, whether it was to be a repre- 
sentative of the entire Church or whether it should “become 
the creature of a part of the Church.” (T., pp. 6-8.)! 

Others of the Alumni felt the difficulty had arisen through 
a division in the Faculty. Of this, the division in the student 
body was just an outgrowth—a detail. This division in the 
Faculty was due, some felt, to the failure of the President to 
exert an acceptable leadership which would co-ordinate and 
unify the various groups in the Faculty and secure harmony 
and co-operation. Still others asserted with a great deal of 
earnestness that the source of the trouble could be traced to 
other members of the Faculty, some naming Dr. Machen 
and others Dr. Erdman. Some were in sympathy with the 
majority of the Faculty and placed the burden on Dr. Steven- 
son and Dr. Erdman. Others, on the contrary, severely 
criticized the attitude and actions of Dr. Machen, attributing 
to him the responsibility for much of the contention on the 
campus. 

It seemed to be the consensus of opinion that much of the 
difficulty in Princeton could be found in the Faculty; that 
the situation which had developed was greatly to be deplored, 
because of the effect upon the students, and the unfavorable 
impression made upon prospective students, who, finding 
the spirit of contention prevailing, preferred to attend some 


1“T” is complete typewritten transcript of the hearings at Princeton. 


6 


other seminary. One pastor spoke of three young men of 
his church, at different times in his ministry, whom he had 
turned toward Princeton, but who went elsewhere, because 
of the situation which they found. 

There was unanimity of feeling that the contention in the 
Faculty must be ended. If an operation were necessary, let 
it be performed after proper diagnosis and by skilful hands, 
but let it be performed. The student body is under the control 
of the Faculty. Let the Faculty function. The Faculty is 
under the Board of Directors. Let the Board exercise its 
control. The Board of Directors is responsible to the General 
Assembly. Let the Board direct the affairs of the Seminary 
to merit the approval of the General Assembly. Petty per- 
sonalities should cease. There must be a defining of rights 
and responsibilities, and then adhering to prerogatives. 

The Alumni present felt this all was essential. They in- 
dicated their belief that the difficulties within Princeton 
Seminary not only should be, but also could be overcome. 
The exercise of Christian courtesy and consideration was 
necessary and to be expected in such an institution. 

A second element of cleavage centered in the withdrawal 
of the Princeton students from the Theological Seminary 
Conference of the Middle Atlantic Union held at Drew 
Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J., October 17-19, 1924, 
and the organization of a new association of theological student 
bodies with common theological views. A committee had 
been appointed by Mr. W. O. Johnson, president of the 
Students’ Association of Princeton Seminary, on October 21, 
1924, “‘to discuss ways and means of fostering an organization 
of conservative seminaries for the purpose of guarding the 
faith and of interesting students in the gospel ministry.”’ 
The Faculty approved the withdrawal of the students from 
the conference at Drew Theological Seminary. The proposal 
to organize a new league was not formally approved, but was 
permitted without objection from the Faculty. The new 
proposal received 140 affirmative votes and 70 negative votes 
among the students. This two-thirds vote constituted Prince- 
ton Seminary a chapter member of the League. This League 
proposed as a condition of membership the assent of the 
students to certain doctrines considered essential to the 
system of theology taught in the Westminster standards. 
The League assumed that these doctrines constituted the 
evangelical basis for membership and also represented to a 
degree the teachings of the Seminary. The students appeared 
to have been impressed with the importance of erecting 
within their own number certain standards, and of bearing 


7 


testimony or witness to the Church of Christ at large. (T., 
p: 12.) 

The Committee did not regard the organization of this 
League as objectionable so long as membership in it was 
voluntary. Some evidence was discovered to the effect 
that pressure had been brought to bear upon individual 
members to join the League, and in a few instances advice 
from individuals in the Faculty had been rather definite. 
It was out of a situation of this sort probably that most of 
the discussions and disagreements arose. A clear definition 
of the rights of students to organize on a voluntary basis 
would have relieved the common source of dissension. ‘The 
eager enthusiasm, not to say partisanship, of young men 
ordinarily needs the counsel of moderation rather than of 
agitation. The function of the student as a student is to be 
a student under the direction and guidance of the Faculty. 
Whether any doctrinal basis for membership within a volun- 
tary league is wise or unwise, may well be a matter for dis- 
cussion as to its policy. Obviously in this case, the League 
has been a source of debate and dissension among the students 
and of misunderstandings in the Faculty. 

The controversy among the students spread quite freely 
among the Alumni also and furnished the occasion of agitation 
and discussion which bore no good fruit, but diverted the 
time and energy of ministers from more worthy subjects of 
consideration. 

Summary: 

1. The Committee does not feel that the League of 
Evangelical Students at Princeton Seminary is an issue to 
be dealt with by this Committee. 

2. The Committee is convinced, however, that the 
students should not be unduly subjected to any partisan 
pressure. The activities of the League in this respect should 
be carefully supervised, and no pressure be brought on any 
student to become a member. 

3. The Committee strongly recommends that all mem- 
bers of the Faculty withdraw from membership in the League. 
The Faculty adviser gives sufficient contact with the Faculty. 
The students should have this resultant freedom. There is 
danger of too much Faculty advice upon the details of 
student life. This leads to the feeling, as in these recent 
years in Princeton, that there is a tendency toward too much 
individual Faculty influence and interference. 


II. The Faculty of the Seminary 


On Tuesday, November 23, 1926, the Committee spent the 
forenoon with the Faculty. The Faculty presented indi- 


8 


vidual statements and reduced to writing certain formal 
statements concerning the position of the Seminary, and the 
duty of the Faculty as interpreted from the Plan of the 
Seminary. The Chairman of the Assembly’s Committee 
submitted a statement, outlining the issues before the Com- 
mittee. 


It became evident at once that the Faculty was divided 
on matters of administration, and also that there was a 
marked cleavage in matters of Church polity. An attitude 
of opposition to the President of the Seminary was disclosed, 
based upon an action of the Seminary Faculty taken October 
2, 1926, wherein a complaint was lodged with the Board of 
Directors against the President because of his statement at 
the General Assembly in Baltimore. The particular ob- 
jection was that President Stevenson had exceeded the pro- 
prieties of faculty etiquette in certain statements made before 
the General Assembly respecting conditions in the Seminary. 


Another source of division was the action taken concerning 
the appointment of the late Dr. John D. Davis as temporary 
instructor in Systematic Theology during the illness of Dr. 
C. W. Hodge. Statements and records submitted by President 
Stevenson tend to show that Dr. Machen endeavored to 
secure the cancellation of this appointment. He declined to 
join in a request that Dr. Davis should accept the appoint- 
ment. As a result there was agitation on the campus which 
brought Dr. Davis under suspicion. The current rumor went 
so far as to intimate that Dr. Machen had warned the students 
against accepting the teachings of Dr. Davis. (Appendix, 
eh aye dl qopey MestaneRLap 

A further source of division was found in the opposition to 
the candidacy of Dr. Charles R. Erdman for the office of 
Moderator of General Assembly. The activities in this 
matter may have been clearly within the rights of individual 
members of the Faculty, but Faculty courtesy or etiquette 
would seem to be quite as important in this case as in the 
case where the Assembly, by vote, requested the President to 
appear and make certain statements concerning his adminis- 
tration. All these matters, however, are matters of history 
and should not now disturb either the Church or the Faculty. 
It is to be regretted that matters of this sort continue in the 
minds of men dealing with much larger issues. 

Another source of contention was found in the elimination 
of Dr. Charles R. Erdman as student adviser. The fact that 
this action was taken on a motion proposed and advocated 
by Dr. Machen, seemed to add fuel to the flame. (T., pp. 
49, 65.) 


0 


The action of the Faculty on the nomination of special 
preachers was also a subject of discussion. It is well known 
that the recommendation of the committee was not adopted 
by the Faculty. It is argued, of course, that such action in 
no way reflects upon the character of the men whose names 
were listed but should be interpreted as expressing a prefer- 
ence on the part of the Faculty for other men. Unfortunately, 
‘in this connection it was said that Dr. Machen in a sub- 
sequent declaration, stated that his ground for opposition 
to two eminent Presbyterian pastors, and the General Secre- 
tary of one of our Boards, whom the Faculty committee had 
recommended as Seminary preachers, was, that these men 
“are not Christians.’”? (Appendix, pp. 52, 185, 186.) 


Administration 


The Committee was impressed with the anomalous situa- 
tion occupied by the President of the Seminary. His duties 
are so inadequately defined as to give rise to difficulties that 
ought never to exist. This is probably due to the fact that 
the theological seminary administration, in the earlier days a 
very simple matter, has grown into the modern conception 
without any careful study of the administrative problems 
liable to exist in a theological seminary. These may not 
differ in principle from administrative problems elsewhere. 
They are subject, however, to the atmosphere of tradition 
and precedent more pronounced in theological schools than 
in other places. It is obvious to the Committee that the 
President of Princeton Theological Seminary occupies an im- 
possible position. Whether the Seminary should go back 
to the former custom of having a Chairman of the Faculty and 
abolish the office of President, or whether the office of Presi- 
dent should be surrounded with better definition of rights, 
duties and prerogatives, is necessarily involved in any solu- 
tion of the issues at the Seminary. 

As illustrating this situation, it will be noted that one of 
the assigned duties of the President is to represent the Sem- 
inary before the Church, and to present the cause of the 
Seminary to prospective students of theology at college or 
university centers. It is noticeable that at Princeton the 
majority of the Faculty are not in accord with the President. 
The formal paper submitted to this Committee is a protest 
against the action and position of the President who, obvi- 
ously, was acting under the authority of this Assembly, and 
under the rules of the Theological Seminary. Among the 
reasons for the existence of a majority party in the Seminary, 
as presented in the documentary evidence from the Faculty, is 


10 


in the fact that the majority represent a more restrictive judg- 
ment as to the functions of the President, while at the same 
time there are divergences of opinion concerning his doctrinal 
position, as intimated by the charge of doctrinal indiffer- 
entism, which he stoutly denies. 

The organization of the committees of the Faculty by the 
Faculty has been a source of controversy and disagreement. 
This Faculty procedure is a departure from the courtesy 
commonly accorded to the Presidents of larger institutions, 
where the interests are much more complex, and where the 
appointment of committees is quite generally referred to the 
President. 

There is a doubt in the minds of students of administrative 
authority throughout the country, whether the President of 
any institution should be a member of its governing board. 
In the majority of cases now, he is not a member of the govern- 
ing board. In a number of instances, however, chiefly among 
those of earlier origin, the President of the college is ex- 
officio a member of the board. This frequently subjects him 
to the suspicion of being committed in advance to the position 
of the governing board which elects him, and, therefore, 
becomes a source of dissatisfaction, if not of opposition. The 
true position of an executive and administrative officer is to 
represent the faculty and student body on the one side, and 
on the other side, to be the official means of communication 
from the governing body. 


Furthermore, it is worth while to direct the attention of 
this Assembly to the fact that a President or a Professor in 
Princeton Theological Seminary cannot be removed from 
office without the consent of the General Assembly. In 
cases of controversy or of uncertainty or of division, as at 
present, in the Faculty, the reference of such a question to 
the General Assembly would arouse debate. with no assur- 
ance that the decision of the governing body or bodies would 
be sustained by the Assembly. In other words, the office of 
President or Professor becomes at once a matter of con- 
troversy in the Assembly. Immediately the question emerges 
as to the grounds on which the Assembly would assent or de- 
cline to assent to the removal of a President or Professor by 
the governing Boards. These facts support the conclusion 
of the Committee that the position of the President of the 
Seminary needs a new statement. 


El 


Adminstration of Funds 


Attention was drawn to the fact that during last year 
Princeton Theological Seminary expended $138,500 in the aid 
of students of other denominations and only $10,000 in the 
aid of students of our own Church. It appears further that 
there is a difference of opinion concerning the right or justice 
of the distribution of funds donated for student aid. There 
appears to be disagreement between the Faculty and the 
Committee on Scholarship Aid of the Directors on this issue, 
the majority of the Faculty contending for the continuance of 
this large aid for students of other denominations, if needed 
by them. An examination of the conditions attached to the 
gifts to the Seminary will disclose the fact that some of them 
are specifically restricted for the use of Presbyterian students, 
but other gifts have been made without any such condition. 
It is fair to assume that persons giving money to a Presby- 
terian theological seminary expected that the money so given 
would be used for the education of students in the Presby- 
terian ministry. The Committee is clearly of the opinion 
that whatever the claims as to the legality of such action, good 
faith would seem to require the use of these funds for Presbyte- 
rian students, unless the donors have expressly provided other- 
wise. ‘The Seminary should not be in a position where, 
on purely technical grounds, the reasonable expectations of 
donors may be defeated. ‘The situation is further com- 
plicated by the fact that Presbyterian students, under present 
conditions, receive aid at the same time from the Board of 
Christian Education, and from the Seminary. It is obvious 
that non-Presbyterian students have a distinct advantage 
in respect to aid from Seminary funds. The statistics for 
last year show that the average aid given to Presbyterian 
students from Seminary funds was $78, whereas the average 
given to non-Presbyterian students from Seminary funds was 
$130. This discrepancy raises in the minds of the Com- 
mittee some serious questions, in view of the fact that the 
Board of Christian Education and the Seminaries are con- 
tinually appealing to the Church for increased financial 
support, and in view of the further fact that the Board of 
Christian Education is straitened in its ability to give aid to 
Presbyterian students. This situation is so disturbing that 
the Committee feels compelled to direct the attention of the 
Assembly, and of the Church to it. 


Faculty Statement Concerning Divisions 


In the formal statement from the majority of the Faculty, 
the following items briefly stated as a source of division in 
the Faculty may be mentioned: (See Appendix, pp. 60-82.) 


12 


1. The disapproval of the position taken by the President 
of the Seminary and Dr. Charles R. Erdman on the Plan of 
Organic Union of Evangelical Churches, in 1920. 

2. The Philadelphia overture to the 135th General 
Assembly at Indianapolis, in 1923. 

3. Certain statements by Dr. Erdman published in the 
“Presbyterian Advance”’ of January 22, 1925, and reprinted 
in ‘The Presbyterian” of February 5, 1925. To this might 
be added certain statements in the ‘“‘Princetonian’’ of Feb- 
ruary 22, 1925, and of the “Trenton Evening Times’ of 
April 4, 1925, and the statements of President Stevenson 
before the Assembly as reported in the ‘‘New York Times” 
of June 3, 1926. 

4. Exception is taken to the attitude of Dr. Charles R. 
Erdman and to certain statements made at the last General 
Assembly in Baltimore, concerning the qualifications of Dr. 
Machen for the chair to which he had been elected. In dis- 
cussing these issues the majority of the Faculty state that, 
“the President of the Seminary had formulated a policy 
which would make it representative of ‘the whole Presby- 
terian Church’ ”’ and thus inclusive of the different doctrinal 
points of view which now exist in the Church. The majority 
of the Faculty maintained that the institution has been his- ~ 
torically affiliated with the doctrinal points of view in the 
Church known as the “Old School.’’ They state: ‘‘They are 
not aware that the reunion of the Old and New Schools re- 
quired the surrender by the institution at that time of its doc- 
trinal position, and they are unwilling that this position be 
surrendered now, when the differences in the Church are con- 
cerned, not with two forms of the Reformed faith, but with 
the very nature of evangelical Christianity itself.’’ (T., p. 13.) 

A further difference pertaining to doctrine and the re- 
lation of Princeton Seminary to the whole church is taken 
from statements from the Faculty as follows: (See Appendix, 
pp. 73-75.) 

‘“(1.) ‘The difference of opinion in the Faculty is absolutely 
fundamental. It concerns not the belief of any member of 
the Faculty, but the fundamental importance of the witness 
of this Seminary and of the Presbyterian Church to the 
Reformed faith, to which the Seminary and the Church are 
absolutely committed.” | 

““(3.) The difference between the President, the minority 
of the Faculty on the one hand, and the majority of the 
Faculty on the other hand, is a difference of attitude 
toward theological controversy. The minority believe in 
peace and work, the majority believe in controversy in 


13 


defense of the truth, and work.” (See Statement by Faculty, 
Appendix, pp. 73-75.) 

In further discussion of this attitude, Dr. Hodge affirms 
that in his judgment Drs. Stevenson and Erdman represent 
a doctrinal indifferentism which is opposed by the majority 
of this Faculty who regard it as unfortunate that Princeton 
Seminary should be thus publicly identified with move- 
ments supported by all liberals. He further states (See 
Appendix) ‘“‘We do not believe that Princeton Seminary 
can be made a Seminary of the whole church, 7.e., repre- 
senting the whole Church doctrinally, even under the Con- 
stitution of the Church, without departing from its historical 
position, because of the prevailing latitude in the interpre- 
tation of our doctrinal standards.’’ (Appendix, p. 75.) 

Further, he remarks, ‘‘It is quite clear, therefore, that such 
differences of view as to what is essential to Christianity do 
exist in the Church today. As long as such divergences do 
exist, Princeton Seminary cannot represent the whole Pres- 
byterian church doctrinally without departing from its 
adherence to the faith of Christendom, not to speak of the 
Reformed faith, to which Princeton Seminary is committed.” 
_ Under such statements, it is obvious that the point of 
divergence is a charge against Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman 
of doctrinal indifferentism, from which both of these gentle- 
men dissent with definite statements to the contrary. 

5. Another source of division was found in the fact of the 
personal relationship between Dr. Charles R. Erdman and 
Dr. J. Gresham Machen, arising out of the publication of the 
letter of January 22, 1925, in “The Presbyterian Advance’’ 
by Dr. Erdman. It is contended earnestly on the part of 
Dr. Machen that the publication of this letter resulted in 
irreparable damage to his standing in the Church and to his 
reputation. The Committee sought to resolve the differences 
here, and to heal this breach by frank and cordial statements 
of both men concerning the circumstances which led to the 
publication of the objectionable letter. On the other hand it 
was plainly stated by Dr. Erdman that in his opinion the 
activities of Dr. Machen had been a source of grievous offense 
and had resulted in a cleavage between former friends and him- 
self, thus doing him an irreparable injury. After long and 
searching inquiry and with much directness of question, the 
Committee expressed to the Faculty the opinion that these 
differences should be healed on the Christian basis as re- 
vealed in the Gospel of Matthew, XVIII: 15-17. Dr. Erdman 
had expressed once and again his willingness to let the past 
be buried and expressed regret for any unfair or unwarranted 


14 


inferences to be drawn from his published statements, and 
for any injury that came to Dr. Machen. He was willing to 
forgive and to forget, and also to proceed for the future upon 
the basis of Christian brotherhood. In a later session, Dr. 
Machen presented the following statement: 

“In my two formal statements to the Committee, I have 
maintained that Dr. Erdman did me a great injury by his 
letter in “The Presbyterian Advance” of January 22, 1925, and 
I am convinced that nothing that has been said since that 
date has served to right this wrong. I have also maintained 
in my statements that my answer to Dr. Erdman’s letter in 
“The Presbyterian Advance” was free from unworthy person- 
alities and entirely in accordance with the facts. My con- 
viction on both these points remains unchanged. 

‘“‘At the same time it has become evident that I cannot con- 
vince Dr. Erdman of the justice of my position with regard 
to either point. It has also become evident that the complete 
investigation and adjudication of this matter by the Assem- 
bly’s Committee or by any other agency would be a long and 
difficult process which would divert to personal questions the 
attention of the Seminary and the Church. I do not believe 
that any desire on my part. for personal vindication should 
be allowed to jeopardize thé high interests with which this 
institution is entrusted. 

“T do not, of course, mean that I shall necessarily agree with 
Dr. Erdman’s ecclesiastical policies, with regard to which I 
must, of course, follow the dictates of my conscience. But I 
am ready and willing, with appreciation of the good offices 
of the Committee; to resume full personal friendly relations 
with Dr. Erdman.” (T., p. 244.) 


When this statement was made, Faculty and Committee 
were greatly encouraged, seeing in the statement a break in 
the unyielding attitude hitherto maintained, and hoping it 
might be followed by complete re-establishing of brotherly 
relations in the Faculty. But the ensuing discussion left 
with the Committee the impression that the statement had 
been academic and defensive, rather than an overture toward 
reconciliation. Dr. Machen confesses no fault. He accepts 
no forgiveness and offers none. ‘The net effect of these 
personal conferences with the Faculty upon the minds of the 
Committee was an impression that no essential change had 
taken place in the mind of Dr. Machen. He still believes that 
there are serious differences in the doctrinal attitudes of the 
Faculty, and he is unwilling to trust the doctrinal loyalties of 
his colleagues. (T., p. 258d.) This obviously leaves much to 
be desired as a basis of brotherly relations. | 


15 


The Boards and Agencies 


At the Faculty hearings the attention of Professor Machen 
was drawn to certain published statements he had made con- 
cerning the membership and management of the Assembly’s 
Boards and Agencies. (It is well known that Dr. Erdman is 
President and that Dr. Stevenson is a member of the Board 
of Foreign Missions.) In his book, “Christianity and Liber- 
alism,’’ Professor Machen, on page 171, stated that “Of every 
dollar contributed to them, perhaps half goes to the support 
of true missionaries of the Cross, while the other half goes to 
the support of those who are persuading men that the message 
of the Cross is unnecessary or wrong.’ This statement 
seemed an indictment of the General Assembly electing the 
members of all our Boards. It is not meant that Professor 
Machen intended it to be so but the statement was so dis- 
turbing that he was asked for some support. His reply was 
that “my books are matters of my opinion.’’ However, upon 
request he added that his view was that the Church was 
facing very grave issues and that the Boards and Agencies 
were not representative of the Church as a whole today. 
In his book, ‘‘What is Faith,’’ he makes the statement ‘“‘that 
at board meetings or in the councils of the Church, it was 
considered bad form even to mention, at least in any definite 
and intelligible way, the Cross of Christ.’ (p. 41.) 


The Committee recognizes fully the right of all members of 
the Church to discuss the methods and policies of the Boards 
and Agencies. Such discussion is, at times, essential to the 
welfare and progress of these Boards and Agencies. The 
defense is inadequate when it is stated that these state- 
ments are matters of opinion. They have had all the effect 
of being statements of fact. Attention was drawn to the 
gravity of making such statements in published books without 
supporting evidence. The proper procedure which the Assem- 
bly would no doubt welcome would be a complaint through 
proper channels as to the qualifications of members elected by 
the Assembly to membership on the Boards. 


This incident serves to illustrate the lack of confidence 
current in some minds concerning the Church. It is not 
different in quality from the lack of confidence as existing 
today among the members of the Faculty of Princeton 
Theological Seminary. It is easy to understand why Alumni 
express their sorrow and regret over the situation in our 
oldest and most honored Theological Seminary. Alumni 
affirm their love for the Seminary and in the same breath 


16 


declare that they can not recommend young men to their 
alma mater until present conditions have been corrected. 


III. The Board of Directors 


On the morning of Wednesday, November 24, 1926, the 
Committee met with the Board of Directors. A large ma- 
jority were present. In the main there was disclosed a 
difference of opinion among members of the Board of Di- 
rectors, so that there was practically an alignment of a 
portion of the Board with the majority of the Faculty, and a 
portion with the minority. It should be stated, however, 
that certain members of the Board of Directors decline to be 
classified as belonging to either of these two divisions. (T., 
pp. 107, 108, for statement of the Chairman as to differences.) 

At this meeting a statement prepared by the Chairman of 
the Board of Directors, and adopted by the Board, was 
submitted to the Committee. This was done by vote of 17 
to 5. This report presented the viewpoint of the Board of 
Directors defending the election of Dr. Machen, and ex- 
pressed the hope that Dr. Stevenson would voluntarily resign. 

Reference here was also made to a Committee of Seven 
appointed by the Board of Directors at the suggestion of 
President Stevenson, in May, 1925, to adjust the problems 
within the Faculty. This report seems not to have been as 
fruitful of good as was desired, as its contents would suggest. 

The Board of Directors also in the paper adopted, expressed 
the opinion that the Seminary in its teachings, witness and 
defense of the Reformed theology embodied in the Confession 
of Faith and the Assembly’s interpretation thereof, is repre- 
senting the views of a large part of the Presbyterian Church. 
That other seminaries with more liberal theological views are 
in the Church, makes it all the more necessary that Princeton 
should stand according to its Plan as representing the con- 
servative wing of the Church. 

In the interlocutory session, it was developed that the 
office of President of the Seminary had been a matter of 
some discussion and that his duty and prerogatives were not 
clearly defined. The origin of this was discussed but no 
adequate explanation of the status of the President was dis- 
closed. It was obvious from statements of such men as Dr. 
George Alexander, Dr. Wallace Radelifie, and Dr. John M. ° 
I’. Finney, that there were differences among the Directors 
which prevented harmonious action even when the men 
agreed upon doctrinal or theological issues. 

A further evidence of disagreement among the Directors 
was found in the differences of opinion expressed concerning 


17 


the methods of election of members of the Faculty. A com- 
plaint was made, and denied, that important elections were 
determined upon in advance of the meetings by the majority 
of the Board without consultation with other members. It 
was obvious to the Committee that unfortunate disagree- 
ments had arisen which prevented entire confidence and 
co-operation among the Directors. 


IV. The Board of Trustees 


On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 23, 1926, the 
Committee met with the Board of Trustees (see statement 
by the Chairman, T., p. 82), where a paper was presented by 
Dr. John McDowell, Secretary of the Board, in which a brief 
historical review was made by citing certain reports of the 
Assembly and actions at joint meetings of the Board of 
Trustees and the Board of Directors, and certain actions of the 
Board of Trustees in connection with certain legacies. The 
report also brought out clearly that there was a difference of 
opinion of long standing between the Board of Trustees and 
the Board of Directors upon the question of final authority and 
the relation of each Board to the other. That question is 
dealt with adequately later in this report. It is necessary, 
therefore, only to note here the fact that certain fundamental 
differences have been developed in the Board of Trustees. 
In other words, the spirit of division seems to have developed 
in practically every organization associated with the Sem- 
inary and this spirit of division has not always been tempered 
with the spirit of brotherly kindness and a charitable spirit 
toward colleagues in the service of the Seminary. 


V. The Student Cabinet 


In the late afternoon of November 23, 1926, the Committee 
met with the Student Cabinet of Princeton Theological 
Seminary in order to secure from them a statement of the 
situation as viewed by students. This interview resulted in 
a discussion of the Middle Atlantic Union of Theological 
Seminaries at the Drew Conference, and of the subsequent 
issues concerning the League of Evangelical Students formed 
after the withdrawal from the Drew Conference. 

This interview was frank and cordial and from the theo- 
retical point of view as presented, there would seem to be no 
legitimate objection to the principles involved in this League. 
The only objections that could be sustained would arise from 
the practical working of such a League, due to the eager desire 
of student organizations to extend their membership. It was 
disclosed that in a certain percentage of the student body 


18 


there were those who were not sufficiently advanced in their 
thinking and convictions to adopt the principles of the 
League, and there were others who were described as con- 
scientious objectors because they had doubt as to the wisdom 
of the League’s policy. There were students who lacked 
enthusiasm about the value of the League in its service to 
the students. 


VI. Efforts of Earlier Assemblies 


Questions respecting the relation of the theological sem- 
inaries to the Church are not new. They have been the 
subject of earnest investigation and discussion by General 
Assemblies for more than a generation. But some of the 
important recommendations of the Assembly have not been 
carried into effect and one committee after another has 
traversed much the same ground. 


In order that the Assembly may have the benefit of the 
efforts of earlier Assemblies in dealing with theological sem- 
inaries, including Princeton, a detailed statement is herewith 
submitted. 


While the recent differences in the Faculty have affected 
the attitude of the Board of Directors and the Board of 
Trustees, there have been differences at times between the 
two Boards running back over a long period of time and the 
Committee believes that, as indicated by reports of special 
committees and resolutions adopted by former assemblies, 
the dual form of government which exists at the Theological 
Seminary at Princeton, as well as at some of the other sem- 
inaries, is unwise and always likely to be a source of friction. 
The differences between the two Boards which have occurred 
at different times, while not very serious perhaps, are suffi- 
ciently serious to demonstrate, from the standpoint of practical 
administration, the folly of two Boards. The situation at 
Princeton from a legal standpoint is worse than at some of 
the other seminaries which have two Boards. In some of the 
seminaries the articles of incorporation provide for adminis- 
tration by two boards. The charter of Princeton Seminary 
provides for a single board, namely the Board of Trustees, 
and neither in the act of incorporation nor in the by-laws of 
the corporation or otherwise is there any legal recognition of 
a second Board. The plan for a theological seminary at 
Princeton was reported to the General Assembly of 1811 and 
adopted. At this time and for several years thereafter there 
was no incorporation. The plan adopted for the operation 
and control of the Seminary provides: 


19 


“See. le As this institution derives its origin from the 
General Assembly, that body is to be considered its patron 
and the fountain of its power. 

“Sec. 2. The Board of Directors appointed by the Assem- 
bly shall have the immediate control of the seminary. 

“See. 8. The General Assembly shall at all times have the 
power of adding to the constitutional articles of the seminary, 
and of abrogating, altering or amending them, but in the 
exercise of this power the contemplated additions, abroga-- 
tions, alterations or amendments shall in every case be pro- 
posed at one assembly and not adopted until the assembly of 
the subsequent year except by a unanimous vote.”’ 

Later agreements between the General Assembly and the 
Trustees of the College of New Jersey when the seminary was 
founded and other provisions of the original plan of Princeton 
Theological Seminary insured to the General Assembly the 
power to appoint the directors, choose the professors, carry on 
the instruction, govern the students and manage the funds 
as to the Assembly might seem best. Also the Assembly in 
the original plan reserved the power ultimately to sanction 
all the laws of the Seminary, direct its instruction and appoint 
its principal officers. (Moore’s Digest, pp. 373, 375.) 

The Seminary at Princeton was established and operated on 
the plan adopted in 1811 until the year 1822, when a civil 
corporation known as “The Trustees of the Theological 
Seminary of the Presbyterian Church’”’ was created by the 
legislature of New Jersey, and this corporation took title to 
the property which had before that time been conveyed to 
the General Assembly for the use of the Theological Seminary, 
and one of its expressed purposes was to take and acquire 
property thereafter for the Seminary. ‘The charter sets forth 
that this corporation should consist of not more than 21 
persons, whereof the General Assembly might at any annual 
meeting change one-third in such manner as to the Assembly 
should seem proper, and the corporation in the manage- 
ment and disposition of the property committed to rts care and 
trust by the General Assembly was delegated to carry out the 
instructions for the management and disposition thereof, 
given by the General Assembly in writing under the hand of 
its clerk. It is clear that when this first theological seminary 
was formed by the Presbyterian Church, it was the purpose to 
maintain direct and complete control by the General Assembly 
of all the teaching and property of the theological seminaries 
belonging to the Church. 

The formation of the civil corporation in 1822 to take and 
hold the title to and own the property of Princeton Seminary 


20 


seems to be a departure from the original purpose and the 
original plan by which the Church created and undertook the 
operation of the theological seminaries. The civil corporation 
became and is the owner in trust of the property which has 
been given to it since its organization and all of the property 
given to the Seminary before that time and the income of all 
such property as may be held by the trustees of the General 
Assembly for the Seminary. 

The relation between the General Assembly and the 
theological seminaries has been the subject of consideration 
by a number of special committees appointed by the General 
Assembly, and on several occasions the Assembly has taken 
action with reference to the reports made by such committees. 
During the years 1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895 an exhaustive 
study was made by an able committee appointed by the 
General Assembly, and a very exhaustive and scholarly 
report was rendered to the Assembly by that committee. 
A reference to the voluminous report of this committee in the 
minutes of the General Assembly of 1892, pages 21 to 39, is 
valuable in this connection. It was pointed out there that 
where the Assembly has the legal right by the terms of a 
charter, to elect and remove the trustees and direct the 
management and disposition of all funds, it is able to enforce 
its mandates, and that the Assembly possessed this power 
over the property given for Princeton Seminary until 1822, 
when the independent civil corporation was created, to 
which the property was given, with the limitations already 
referred to. There are other seminaries of the Church having 
both a Board of Trustees and a Board of Directors. In the 
articles of incorporation of some of them, like those of 
McCormick Seminary for illustration, a Board of Directors is 
provided for by the articles of incorporation. In the charter 
of Princeton Seminary no provision whatever is made for a 
Board of Directors. It would seem that the Board of Directors 
has been continued since its original appointment by the 
General Assembly as the agent of the Assembly to exercise 
such authority as the Assembly itself might delegate. It 
is clear, of course, that the Board of Directors cannot exercise 
any power or authority except such power and authority as 
may be delegated by the Assembly. The only authority re- 
served by the General Assembly when it organized the civil 
corporation was the right to change one-third of the trustees 
at any annual meeting in such manner as to the Assembly 
should seem proper, and in writing under the hands of its 
clerk, to give special instructions for the management and 
disposal of the property committed to the care and trust of 


21 


the corporation by the General Assembly. As to all other 
property, the title to which has been vested in the trustees, 
the corporation has by its charter full power to manage, 
control, dispose of and reinvest such property as in the judg- 
ment of a majority of its Board of Trustees will be for the 
best interests of the corporation. Section 9 of the Act in- 
corporating the Trustees provides that the corporation shall 
annually exhibit to the General Assembly the exact state of 
its funds and accounts. It was pointed out by the special 
committee in its report to the Assembly in 1893 with respect 
to the independent civil corporations holding property in 
trust for the various theological seminaries that such cor- 
porations owned the property and had its control and man- 
agement free from any direct interference by the General 
Assembly, save as to the property given to them by the 
Assembly as to which the Assembly may direct the manage- 
ment, and the committee in its report expresses in italics this 
significant pronouncement: The greater portion of the property 
held by these corporations, and which amounts to between eight 
and nine millions of dollars, 1s not held in trust for the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, nor is it given the direct 
control, management or disposition of the same by the terms of 
their charters.’’ (Mins. G. A., 1893, p. 24.) 

With respect to Princeton Seminary, it is said in that 
report: 

‘‘Save as hereinbefore stated in Sections 6 and 9 of the 
Act of incorporation—which are that the General Assembly 
may, at its annual meetings, change one-third of the Board 
of Trustees, issue special instructions for the management 
of such property as may have been committed to the care and 
trust of the Board by the General Assembly, and the obliga- 
tion to make an exact statement of the accounts and funds of 
the corporation annually to the General Assembly—there are 
no provisions in the Act of incorporation by which the Pres- 
byterian Church, through its General Assembly or any other 
agency, may interfere with the management and control of 
the Board of Trustees of Princeton Theological Seminary, 
which holds title to, and controls and manages the entire 
property held in trust by it for the purposes of the Seminary. 
The property is owned, controlled and managed by this civil 
corporation, which perpetuates itself by the election of its 
own Board of Trustees. The property belongs to that cor- 
poration and is held by it in trust upon such terms as the 
donors may have affixed to their gifts. 


“The charter, or Act of incorporation, of this Board is silent 
as to the appointment of the professors and the control of 


22 


the instruction and details of the Seminary itself. Its Act 
of incorporation nowhere refers to what is known as the Plan 
or Constitution of the Theological Seminary. It does refer 
to the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States of America, located at Princeton, in the 
State of New Jersey. But by the terms of the charter, or 
Act of incorporation, the Board of Trustees of the Seminary 
is given entire control over the funds held in trust for the 
Seminary, according to the terms of the gifts, and the Pres- 
byterian Church cannot by any of its agencies, so far as the 
charter is concerned, interfere with the control and manage- 
ment of the property thus held by this independent corpora- 
tion save as we have stated. 

“The existing control and management of the Seminary 
itself, so far as the appointment of professors and teachers, 
the course of instruction and other details are concerned, is as 
follows: 

“A Board of Directors is provided for in the Plan of the 
Seminary adopted by the General Assembly of 1811 and as 
amended by subsequent Assemblies. Under this Plan, which 
by Section 1, Article 1, declares the institution derives its 
origin from the General Assembly, and that that body is to 
be considered its patron and the fountain of its power, the 
Board of Directors appointed by the Assembly has the im- 
mediate control of the Seminary. The Assembly, by Section 
3, Article 1, reserves to itself the power of adding to the 
Constitutional Articles of the Seminary and of abrogating, 
altering, or amending them. 

* * *k * 


“The Board of Directors, as provided by Article 2, Section 1, 
consists of twenty-one ministers and nine ruling elders, of 
whom one-third, or seven ministers, and three elders, shall 
be chosen by the Board annually, to continue in office three 
years, the Board having power to fill all vacancies. All elec- 
tions, however, are subject in the original plan, to the veto 
of the General Assembly, to which they shall be reported at 
its next meeting thereafter. 

“Section 2 of the same article gives the Board of Directors 
power to elect professors, and remove them from office, such 
election and removal to be subject to the veto of the General 
Assembly. By Section 11, each Director, previously to taking 
his seat as a member of the Board, shall subscribe the following 
formula: “Approving the Plan of the Theological Seminary 
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 
I solemnly declare and promise, in the presence of God and 
this Board, that I will faithfully endeavor to carry into effect 


23 


all the articles and provisions of said Plan, and to promote 
the great design of the Seminary.” 

“The Board of Directors, by Section 12, is empowered to 
examine into the whole course of instruction and study in the 
Seminary, and in general to superintend, and endeavor to 
promote, its interests; and by Section 138, it is required to 
make, in writing, a detailed and faithful report of the state 
of the Seminary to every General Assembly. 

“By Section 1, of Article 8, the Board of Directors is author- 
ized to exercise all control of the funds belonging to the in- 
stitution, hitherto exercised by the General Assembly, as far 
as can be done consistently with the will of the testators and 
donors, fixing the salaries of the professors and regulating the 
amount required for the endowment of scholarships or pro- 
fessorships. By Section 2, all matters relating to finance, 
fixing salaries of professors, and the extent of endowment to 
aid students, shall be submitted by the Board of Directors to 
the Board of Trustees for their approval. 

“The Committee is advised that a large portion of the funds 
held for the use of Princeton Seminary is subject to the 
following condition imposed by the donors in making their 
gifts: 

“That the Seminary shall continue under the supervision 
and control of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, known as the Old 
School General Assembly, and its successors, and that the 
leading doctrines declared in the Confession of Faith and 
Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church, as these doctrines 
were understood and explained by the Old School General 
Assembly, shall continue to be taught in the Seminary.” 


‘‘How far the General Assembly may interfere in the event 
of the failure of the Board of Trustees to conform to the 
conditions upon which these gifts were made, we do not deem 
it necessary to express any opinion. 


“The legal title to these gifts, whatever may be the con- 
ditions upon which they are held, is in the civil corporation 
created by the laws of the State of New Jersey, and the man- 
agement, control and disbursement of the funds, subject to 
the conditions aforesaid, are also possessed by that civil 
corporation. ‘The donors and their legal representatives un- 
doubtedly have the right to invoke the aid of a civil court to 
compel compliance with the conditions of their gifts. As the 
gifts were not made to the General Assembly, and are not 
held in trust for the General Assembly, but for the Seminary, 
it is plain that there is a clear distinction between the legal 
rights of the donors and their representatives, and the legal 
rights of the General Assembly and the Church. 


24 


“The plan of control and management of the Board of 
Directors of Princeton Seminary, so far as its relation to the 
General Assembly is concerned, it is claimed, was modified 
by the compact of 1870, by which the General Assembly, it 1s 
claimed, surrendered to Princeton and the other existing 
Seminaries its right of control under their plan of govern- 
ment, and retained simply the right to veto the appointment 
of professors, and in some seminaries to veto the election of 
directors. This was done, it is claimed, in order to place all 
the seminaries reporting to the General Assembly on an equal 
footing; so that the control of the General Assembly, under 
present relations, is confined to a veto of the appointment of 
professors and in certain cases of directors. 

‘As we have seen the power or right of veto either of the 
election of directors or professors, without adequate provision 
for its enforcement in cases of disobedience to its mandates, 
is, so far as effective control is concerned, practically value- 
less. 

“The Board whose acts are vetoed, having the power either 
to continue the person vetoed in office, or nominate his 
successor, is in command of the situation. 

“As illustrating the extent of the control of the civil cor- 
poration holding title to and the management of the property 
of Princeton Seminary, attention may be called to what might 
happen in the event of a difference occurring between the 
Board of Directors, on whom devolves the appointment of 
the professors and the general management of the Seminary, 
and the Board of Trustees of the civil corporation, which 
pays the salaries and controls the finances. In the event of 
such difference, the Board of ‘Trustees might refuse to provide 
for or pay any salary of a professor appointed by the Board 
of Directors. Should the Board of Trustees refuse to pay 
the salary of a professor whose appointment they did not 
approve, and with whom they had no contract relation, it is 
difficult to see how they could be compelled to do so. Having 
the power to refuse to pay salaries, it might be able to destroy 
the usefulness of the Seminary, or compel the Board of 
Directors to appoint only such men as professors and teachers 
as the 'l'rustees might dictate or approve. 

“Without assuming that such differences and their results 
are at all probable, the Committee deems it its duty to call 
the attention of the General Assembly to what is possible 
under existing legal relations.”’ (Minutes G. A., 1893, pp. 
29 to 32.) 

Without dissenting in any respect from the conclusions 
reached by the committee of 1893, or minimizing in the 


25 


slightest the plain dangers it pointed out, it is fair to state 
in this connection that there is now no disposition on the 
part of the Trustees of the Seminary to do otherwise than 
carry out in good faith the purpose of the Church in estab- 
lishing the Seminary. (See ordinance of Board of Trustees 
passed December 7, 1924, respecting execution of instructions 
of General Assembly regarding management and disposal 
of trust property held by corporation. Charter and Plan, p. 48.) 
At a conference held by the Committee with the Board of 
Trustees at Princeton, on November 23, 1926, the Board 
authorized the Committee to obtain the opinion of counsel 
learned in the law, particularly the law in New Jersey, upon 
the validity and advisability of having one Board, eliminating 
the dual government which now prevails and creating one 
Board of Control. The Committee has obtained such opinion 
from New Jersey counsel, and such opinion coincides with 
the report of the Committee made to the Assembly of 1893, 
from which we have just quoted. ‘The Special Committee 
in 1893 reported that it had not yet reached any conclusion 
as to what method should be adopted by the Church, either 
of securing a more effective control over the property and 
teaching of existing seminaries, or of securing control of 
the teaching and the property of future seminaries, believing 
that the Church should first be informed as to the legal 
status of the seminaries and the control to be exercised by 
the Church over their teaching and property, in order that 
free discussion might be had on the part of those interested 
in this important subject, to the end that whatever decision 
was finally made might be the result of careful deliberation 
and reached with the free and intelligent consent of all parties 
to be affected by the action of the General Assembly. The 
Committee was enlarged and continued, and in 1894 pre- 
sented another exhaustive report evidencing careful study 
and consideration, in which it repeated its conclusion, that 
the property held by the civil corporation owning the property 
of the theological seminaries was not expressly held in trust 
for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church or 
subject to its control, management or disposition by the 
terms of their charters and added: 


“By the terms of the compact of 1870 and the plan of re- 
union the supervision and control exercised by the General 
Assembly over the various theological seminaries, it is 
claimed, is limited to the exercise of the right of approval or 
veto of the appointment of professors. In addition to this, 
each seminary reports annually to the General Assembly its 
receipts, disbursements, the number of students and the 


26 


number of graduates, with such special information as the 
various Boards in charge of these institutions may see fit to 
communicate. 

“The foregoing, however, is not all of the control possessed 
by the General Assembly over the teaching of the theological 
’ seminaries. It has greater power which it may exercise, if 
occasion arises, unless by the terms of reunion and the com- 
pact of 1870 it has surrendered the same. According to the 
plan of government of Princeton, Western, McCormick, 
Danville, and Omaha, the General Assembly has the right to 
control the election of the Boards of Directors, to whom are 
entrusted the appointment of professors and the manage- 
ment of the seminary generally, save and except the holding 
of the title to property, its management, sale, disposition, and 
investment. 

“Under the original plan of the seminaries, known as the 
Old School seminaries, the General Assembly had the power 
to remove the professors, as well as to approve or veto their 
appointment. In order to secure uniformity of teaching, in 
so far as it is practicable, the General Assembly could, under 
the power thus possessed over the seminaries named, unless 
the power has been surrendered by the compact of 1870, 
issue such instructions as might secure such uniformity of 
teaching. But the General Assembly has, by the terms of the | 
charters of the civil corporations, no direct control over the 
property of the seminaries, except over such property as it 
has given them. 


‘The power vested in the General Assembly by the Consti- 
tution of the Presbyterian Church, to try by judicial process 
those who occupy a ministerial relation to the Church, and 
are acting as teachers, and the power of discipline, cannot be 
sald to be control over the seminaries, affecting their teaching 
and property. While it is true, that under these powers the 
General Assembly may reach individuals, and thus directly 
affect the teaching in the seminaries, we do not regard the 
exercise of these powers as within the term ‘control.’ 


‘How far the compact of 1870 and the terms of reunion 
affected the powers of the General Assembly, which up to 
that time it possessed and exercised, we do not deem it 
necessary to discuss or to express any opinion. It is sufficient 
for the purpose of this Report to say that since the compact 
of 1870 the General Assembly has substantially exercised no 
other control over the seminaries than that provided for by 
that compact, and whatever dormant and unexercised powers 
it possesses are limited as herein stated, and have not affected 
either the teaching or the property of the seminaries.” 
(Min., G. A., 1894, pp. 10, 11.) 


27 


“The charters of existing seminaries cannot be changed, 
and no new or additional power over the management of 
these seminaries can be exercised by the General Assembly, 
without their consent. If the Assembly’s powers are to be 
enlarged, and if the veto power conferred by the compact of 
1870 is to be made effective, changes must be made in the 
charters of the respective seminaries, and these changes 
cannot be made unless the seminaries consent thereto. 

“The General Assembly of 1892, that created this Com- 
mittee, by its resolutions declared that the Church should 
have direct connection with and control of its theological 
seminaries, and that it desired this Committee to report to 
the General Assembly such action as in its judgment would 
result in a still closer relation between the Assembly and its 
seminaries than at present exists. 

“Two things are clear from these directions or resolutions: 

“First, that the connection with or control over the the- 
ological seminaries desired by the Church is a direct one. 
Second, that such connection or control is one that is not 
now exercised, and should be in fact, as well as in name, 
direct control over teaching and property. A closer relation 
than now exists is a relation that will enable the General 
Assembly to exercise a control over the teaching and property 
of the seminaries either not now possessed or exercised by it, 
and to enforce this control when it so desires. 


“The Committee, in its former Report, called attention to 
the fact that the power or right of veto, without adequate 
provision for its enforcement in cases of disobedience, is 
valueless, and that the veto of the election of professors, 
without legal power to enforce the same, is to place the body 
possessing the right to veto absolutely in the power of the 
body whose acts are thus vetoed. 


“It is possible, under the existing methods of control, for 
corporations or Boards in which is vested the power of appoint- 
ment of professors and control of property, to divert the funds 
committed to their keeping to other uses than that of theo- 
logical education in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, 
and to elect and retain professors whose teaching is destructive 
of the faith of the Church, and all this may be done against 
the protest and veto of the General Assembly, without legal 
_ power on the part of the Assembly to prevent it. 


“Tt seems clear to the Committee, therefore, in the light 
of the resolutions under which it was appointed, and in view 
of the experience of the Church, that whatever plan is recom- 
mended by the Committee should contain a provision for the 
enforcement of the rights and powers possessed by the 
General Assembly. 


28 


“The Committee recognizes that whatever change is 
recommended in existing methods ought to meet the hearty 
approval and command the hearty co-operation of the 
seminaries affected by it; and that whatever obligations 
exist with regard to the seminaries in being at the time of 
reunion, and that whatever difficulties, legal or otherwise, 
may be found in making the suggested changes In the govern- 
ment of such seminaries, the General Assembly should not 
be absolutely controlled in its action on this all-important 
matter by reason thereof. The General Assembly should 
recognize the natural division of the subject into (1) the care 
and control of existing seminaries, and (2) provision for the 
control of seminaries to be hereafter organized. 

“The Committee is of the opinion that whatever plans may 
be adopted by the General Assembly with reference to the 
seminaries existing at the time of reunion should be adopted 
without impairment of any of the rights of the General 
Assembly or of said seminaries which may have accrued by 
reason of the compact of 1870, but the Committee expresses 
the earnest hope that all of said seminaries will, as soon as 
possible, see their way clear to conform thereto, in order to a 
uniform plan with the minimum of effective control and the 
maximum of liberty to the various seminaries in the manage- 
ment of their affairs, and that all seminaries hereafter or- 
ganized shall be organized on the plan, and their charters 
shall contain the provisions recommended in this Report to 
be adopted by existing seminaries. 

“After a full consideration of the subject assigned the 
Committee, and after a very extended investigation of the 
management by other denominations of their theological 
seminaries, and in the light of the experience of our own 
Church, your Committee unanimously agrees on the following 
fundamental principles as controlling the future management 
of the theological education of the ministry of our Church, 
and embodies the same in two resolutions, as follows: 

“Resolved, That it is the judgment of this Committee that 
the instruction given in the theological seminaries of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America should 
be under the control and direction of that Church. 

‘Resolved, That all funds and property held for the purpose 
of theological instruction shall be used only for theological 
education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. 

“The highest of all offices upon this earth is that of the 
true minister of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. A most 
umportant and vital function of the Church is to direct, 


29 


supervise and control the education of its own ministry. 
Loyalty to its divine head, fidelity to truth, preservation of 
its own life demand that it shall keep essentially in its own 
hands the discharge of this function through whatever agency 
it may be exercised. 

“Your Committee is of the opinion that in some form the 
theological education of the ministry of our Church and the 
property and funds held for the purpose of giving that educa- 
tion should be under the control of the Church, as represented 
by the General Assembly. The extent, character and mode 
of that control, they recognize, afford a basis for a wide 
difference of opinion, but they believe that there ought to 
be no substantial difference of opinion in the Church that 
such control is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of 
the faith of the Church, and that to secure a ministry educated 
in the faith and according to the policy of the Church; not 
only the education of the ministry, but the funds and property 
held in trust for that purpose, should be under the direct and 
efficient control of the Church through its General Assembly. 
The Committee further recognizes that the existing method 
does not secure to the Church that direct control of property 
and teaching to which the Church is entitled. This control 
should be secured to the Church in such a way that it will be 
effective in the only cases in which it is really needed, viz., 
when the Boards charged with the immediate supervision and 
management of the property and teaching disobey the 
mandates of the Church, as expressed by the General Assem- 
bly. 

“Tt is clear to the Committee that no member of the Pres- 
byterian Church should be requested to give property for the 
purpose of theological education, according to the Standards 
of the Church, unless the Church shall secure to the donor 
the permanent application of the property to that purpose. 
The burden of preserving the property thus given should not 
be cast upon the donor or his legal representatives, but upon 
the Church, which should so protect the gift that it will be 
applied solely to the purposes which the donor had in view 
at the time of the gift. 

“Such donations or bequests become sacred trusts, which 
should be carefully guarded, both out of regard for the wishes 
of the living and of reverence for the memory of the dead. 
No alienation of funds or perversion from the original intention 
to have them used in connection with the Presbyterian Church 
should ever be possible. 

“The Committee recognizes that the fullest confidence in 
the honesty and integrity of those charged with the adminis- 


30 


tration of the trusts should exist on the part of the Church, 
and that the administrations of the trusts should have the 
fullest confidence in the Church, as represented by the 
General Assembly, in order to that co-operation which is 
essential to the best results, under the ministry of the Holy 
Spirit, in securing to our beloved Church an adequate supply 
of competent, consecrated ministers. 

“The solution of the difficult question presented to your 
Committee, and which your Committee now desires to 
transfer to the General Assembly, can only be attained under 
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and by the exercise of the 
largest forbearance, but with faithful adherence to funda- 
mental principles, and the largest freedom in matters of 
detail consistent with loyalty to the faith and the best in- 
terests of the Church as a whole, and to the trusts created by 
the donors of property now possessed by the various theo- 
logical seminaries. 

“Your Committee recognizes that a very wide field is 
afforded for reform and change in existing methods of man- 
aging seminaries. It feels that no beneficial change can be 
accomplished without the hearty co-operation of those 
affected thereby, and that the plans recommended by it 
must commend themselves to the Church at large, and to 
those immediately and directly connected with their ex- 
ecution, in order that the plans may have a fair test. 


“Your Committee recommends that the following changes 
be made in the management of the existing theological 
seminaries of the Church: 

“(a) ‘That the seminaries should so amend their charters 
that all of their funds and property, subject to the terms and 
conditions of existing or specific trusts, shall be declared to 
be held by them in trust for the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America, for the purpose of theological 
education according to the Standards of said Church, and 
that no part of the funds and property so held in trust shall 
be used for any other purpose than for theological education 
in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States of America. 


‘(b) ‘That the seminaries should so amend their charters 
that the election of the Trustees, Directors, or Commissioners, 
or whatever the bodies governing either the teaching or 
property, or both, shall be named, shall be subject to the 
approval of the next succeeding General Assembly, and that 
no election shall take effect until approved by the General 
Assembly; failure of the General Assembly to which said 
elections are reported for approval to act thereon, shall be 
regarded as approval of said elections. 


31 


‘“(c) That the seminaries should so amend their charters 
that the election, appointment, or transfer of all professors 
and teachers in said seminaries shall be submitted to the 
next succeeding General Assembly for its approval, and that 
no such election, appointment, or transfer shall take effect, 
nor shall any professor or teacher be inducted into office 
until his election, appointment, or transfer shall have been 
approved by said General Assembly; failure of the General 
Assembly to which the said election, appointments, or trans- 
fers are reported for approval to act thereon, shall be re- 
garded as approval thereof; and that all of said professors or 
teachers shall be either ministers or members in good standing 
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. 

‘“(d) That the several seminaries, in amending their 
charters as heretofore requested, shall provide in the charters 
that in the event of the violation of any of the terms of said 
amendments, or the misuse or diversion of the funds or 
property held by them, then the General Assembly shall be 
empowered to provide against such violation of the provisions 
of said charters, and for the enforcement of the same, and 
for the protection of the trusts on which said property and 
funds are held, in such manner, and in the name of such 
person or corporation as it may direct by resolution certified 
by its Clerk, in any civil court having jurisdiction over the 
corporations whose charters are so amended. 


“The changes thus proposed in the charters of existing 
Seminaries, and: the features to be embodied in the charters 
of seminaries hereafter organized, are substantially these: 


“The charter will declare the trust on which the property 
is held, as provided in (a), so that the gifts made to the cor- 
poration need not be accompanied by the declaration of the 
donor that the property is held in trust for the purposes for 
which it is donated. As the case now stands, where a gift is 
made to one of the existing seminaries without any express 
condition. being attached by the donor, the corporation 
holds it free from any condition or trust other than that 
provided by the general purpose for which the corporation 
was incorporated. The donors or their legal representatives 
in such cases are powerless to enforce the application of the 
property to the uses which they had in mind, but which they 
did not make express conditions when the gifts were made. 
Every donor hereafter will feel that, in making gifts of 
property to the theological seminaries of our Church with 
their charters so amended, the trust will attach to the do- 
nation upon its receipt by the corporation, and the pro- 
visions of the charter will inhere in the gift, and become a 


32 


part of it, for all time to come. It seems to the Committee 
that no objection whatever can be made to this proposed 
change in the charters of the various seminaries, and to the 
embodiment of this provision in the charters of seminaries 
hereafter to be organized. 


“In the matter of the election of the bodies governing 
teaching and property, it is proposed to place in the charters 
a provision that the election of members of the governing 
bodies will be subject to the approval of the General Assem- 
bly, and that no election shall take effect until thus approved. 
Under the existing charters, in some cases, it has been con- 
tended that any such right of approval of the election of the 
members of the governing bodies on the part of the General 
Assembly would be ultra vires, and in derogation of the 
charter powers conferred on the Directors, or whatever the 
governing body may be called. It must be conceded that 
no such objection would lie if the powers were conferred on 
the General Assembly by the charter. This provision does 
not give the General Assembly power to elect the Directors, 
Trustees or Commissioners. That power will remain in the 
Boards themselves, including the power to fill vacancies. 
It simply gives the General Assembly power to approve of the 
elections thus made, without which approval no election shall 
take effect. It seems to the Committee that this secures the 
minimum of effective control, with the maximum of liberty 
to the various Boards charged with the administration of the 
details of each seminary. — 

“In the matter of the control of the teaching the same 
general plan should be adopted. The respective Boards will 
have the power of selection and election of professors and 
teachers, subject to the approval of the General Assembly, 
without which approval no election shall take effect, and no 
eacher or professor shall be inducted into office until that 
approval is given. The full power, therefore, of selection and 
election is left with the various Boards as it now is, but the 
power of approval by the General Assembly being made a 
charter provision, no objection could then be made that the 
Directors or governing body were conferring powers which they 
could not delegate. It seems to the Committee that if the 
approval of professors and teachers is to exist at all in the 
General Assembly, it should exist in the form which will 
enable the General Assembly to enforce its rights. The pro- 
vision to be embodied in each charter, that the General 
Assembly shall have power to enforce, by process in the 
civil courts if necessary, the rights conferred upon it, is 
simply providing a method for the protection of the property 


3d 


and teaching, to the extent that it is granted to the General 
Assembly by the other provisions of the charters. 

“The existing situation leaves it open to grave doubt 
whether the General Assembly, if it should become necessary, 
has the power to enforce the rights possessed by it under the 
constitution or by compact. This amendment to the various 
charters is inserted for the purpose of making effective the 
rights granted to the General Assembly and possessed by it 
under the charters. Whatever powers are possessed by the 
General Assembly, and whatever rights are conferred upon 
it, there should exist every necessary provision for the en- 
forcement and protection of these rights and powers. 

‘The Committee, in declaring that all funds and property 
held for the purpose of theological education shall be used 
only for theological education in the doctrines set forth in 
the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, regard this as essential for the maintenance 
of our system of faith. Such a resolution does not bind the 
Church for all time to come to her Standards as they now 
exist. It does not deprive the Church of the power to revise 
her Confession of Faith, or to adopt such interpretation of 
her Standards through her authorized channels and con- 
stitutional courts as she may find necessary. 

“It simply says that whatever is the faith of the Church, 
as recognized in its accepted and authorized Standards, shall 
be the system of truth to be taught in her theological sem- 
inaries. ‘lo teach in accordance with this shall be the pledge 
and promise of each professor, and to guide the instruction in 
harmony with this shall be the duty of each Director, ‘Trustee 
or Commissioner. 


“Some question may be raised as to the power of the 
various legislatures under which the respective corporations 
of existing seminaries have been incorporated to make the 
changes recommended in this Report. Without entering into 
a discussion of the objections that may be made on this 
ground, it is sufficient to say that the Committee, as advised, 
can see no legal difficulty in the way of making those changes, 
should any or all of the various corporations desire to have 
them made. 


“Tt is to be borne in mind that the contemplated amenc- 
ments to the charters cannot in any way affect specific trusts 
attached to specific gifts inconsistent with the amendments. 
If any such exist they would remain in full force. Should the 
Church adopt the recommendations made by the Committee 
and the Boards of the various seminaries agree to carry out 
the will of the Church, the Committee feels confident that no 


o4 


legal difficulty exists to prevent this being done. If the will 
exists to do the thing recommended the way will be found in 
which to do it. 

“The first and main question is, Are the changes recom- 
mended by the Committee wise, and should they be adopted 
as the policy of the Church in dealing with the matter of 
theological education, and with the property held in trust 
for that purpose? Will the Church settle on what it deems 
the best plan to secure to itself effective control of the most 
important part of its work—the education of its ministry? 
Having settled the plan, and it not being illegal or against 
public policy, as it cannot be, and all parties being actuated 
by the common purpose to secure its adoption and proper 
execution, no legal difficulty, in the judgment of the Com- 
mittee, will be found to exist to prevent its being done. 

“Resolution No. 3, recommended by the Committee for 
adoption, provides for the appointment of a Committee to 
confer with the various seminaries with a view to securing 
the necessary changes in the charters provided by the amend- 
ments recommended in this Report. Each seminary has 
matters of detail concerning gifts, provisions of charters 
and mode of operation, different from the others. But the 
Committee deems it wholly unnecessary, in view of its former 
Report, to enter on a discussion of these details, the adjust- 
ment and harmonizing of which with the suggested amend- 
ments would better be left to the Committee whose appoint- 
ment is recommended in connection with the various Boards 
in control of the seminaries. 

“The Committee has given a great deal of time and thought 
to the subjects embraced in the Report and to the various 
changes recommended by it to be made in the charters of the 
seminaries and has stated its conclusions in the matter with- 
out entering into needless detail, which might make the 
Report of unnecessary length. 

“The Committee recommends the adoption of the follow- 
ing resolutions: 

“First. That each and all of the seminaries of the Church 
be requested to secure, at the earliest moment practicable, 
such changes in their charters, or amendments thereto, as 
will provide: 

‘“(a) That all of their funds and property, subject to the 
terms and conditions of existing or specific trusts, shall be 
declared to be held by them in trust for the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, for the purposes of 
theological education according to the Standards of said 
Church, and that no part of the funds and property so held 


35 


in trust shall be used for any other purpose than for theo- 
logical education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards 
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. 

‘“(b) That the election of the Trustees, Directors or Com- 
missioners, or whatever the bodies governing the teaching or 
property shall be named, shall be subject to the approval of 
the next succeeding General Assembly, and that no election 
shall take effect until approved by the General Assembly; 
failure of the General Assembly to which said elections are 
reported for approval to act thereon shall be regarded as 
approval of said elections. 

“(c) That the election, appointment or transfer of all 
professors and teachers in all seminaries shall be submitted to 
the next succeeding General Assembly for its approval, and 
that no such election, appointment or transfer shall take 
effect, nor shall any professor or teacher be inducted into 
office until his election, appointment or transfer shall have 
been approved by the said General Assembly; failure of the 
General Assembly to which the said elections, appointments 
or transfers are reported for approval to act thereon shall be 
regarded as approval thereof, and that all of said professors 
and teachers shall be either ministers or members in good 
standing of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America. 

“(d) That in the event of the violation of any of the terms 
of said amendments, or the misuse or the diversion of the 
funds or property held by them, then the General Assembly 
shall be empowered to provide against such violation of the 
provisions of said charters, and for the enforcement of the 
same, and for the protection of the trusts on which said 
property and funds are held, in such manner, and in the 
name of such person or corporation, as it may direct by 
resolution certified by its Clerk, in any civil court having 
jurisdiction over the corporations whose charters are so 
amended. 


“Second. That all seminaries hereafter established or 
organized shall contain in their charters the foregoing pro- 
visions as an essential part thereof, before they shall be recog- 
nized as in connection with the Presbyterian Church in the 
United States of America. 

“Third. That the General Assembly, having adopted the 
foregoing resolutions, shall appoint a Committee of fifteen 
persons to confer with the various seminaries, with a view to 
securing their approval of said resolutions, and their consent 
to said changes in their charters, and for the purpose of aiding 
them by counsel and otherwise in securing the necessary 


36 


changes and amendments to the respective charters herein | 
recommended; it being understood that the adoption of said 
resolutions is without impairment of any of the rights of the 
General Assembly, or of said seminaries that may have 
accrued by the compact of 1870; and said Committee to make 
report to the next General Assembly for final action on this 
whole subject by the Assembly.” (Min. G. A., 1894, pp. 
08 to 67.) 

There was long and earnest debate upon the report of the 
Committee in 1894, and a minority report was submitted, 
but the report of the Committee upon a yea and nay vote 
was 445 in the affirmative and 117 in the negative. (Min. 
G. A., 1894, p. 48.) 

The minority report presented, while it differed from the 
conclusions of the majority report, particularly in respect to 
the question of control over instruction in the seminaries, 
concluded with the recommendation ‘‘that if anything be 
lacking in the charter of any seminary, by which lack its 
property might be alienated from its use in supporting Pres- 
byterian theological instruction, such seminary be advised to 
strengthen its charter at that point so that such alienation 
shall be an impossibility.’’ (Min. G. A., 1894.) 

At the Assembly of 1895 the Committee on conference with 
the Theological Assemblies, appointed by the Assembly of 
1894, reported that it had held conferences with certain 
seminaries and that later it had addressed a letter to each of 
the members of the seminaries and had received answers 
which are appended to the report. In this report the Com- 
mittee said: 

‘At the said conferences, the Committee, in expressing the 
meaning and effect of the recommendations, said that ‘‘A’’, 
which is as follows: 

“ “That all of their funds and property, subject to the 
terms and conditions of existing or specified trusts, shall be 
declared to be held by them in trust for the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, for the purposes of 
theological education according to the Standards of said 
Church, and that no part of the funds and property so held 
shall be used for any other purpose than for theological 
education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,’ 
involved no change of title, trust, ownership, management or 
disposition of the property held by the various seminaries; 
conferred no trust, title, ownership or power on the General 
Assembly directly or indirectly, or to any of its agencies; and 
conferred no right of control, management or interference in 


3” 


any way, directly or indirectly, with any of the said sem- 
inaries. It was simply a declaration of the use and purpose 
for which the funds and property were held by the respective 
civil corporations holding the same; and its adoption was to 
make plain that the funds and property of the respective 
civil corporations were held by them, and them alone and 
exclusively, for no other purpose than for theological educa- 
tion according to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States of America. 

As to ‘‘B,”’ which is as follows: 

“That the election of the trustees, directors or commis- 
sioners, or whatever the bodies governing the teaching or 
property shall be named, shall be subject to the approval of 
the next succeeding General Assembly, and that no election 
shall take effect until approved by the General Assembly; 
failure of the General Assembly, to which said elections are 
reported for approval, to act thereon, shall be regarded as 
approval of said elections.” 


‘The Committee stated that substantially the powers here 
sought to be conferred on the General Assembly are now 
possessed by it over a majority of the seminaries; and that 
the adoption of ‘‘B”’ simply made plain by charter provision, 
and effective by charter power, the right of the General 
Assembly to protect what it thus possesses. 


“Tt also stated that “B”’ did not confer on the General 
Assembly the right to elect any member of the various 
Boards, or the right to elect others in the place of those who 
might be disapproved by the General Assembly, or the right 
to fill any vacancy in any of the Boards; and that the entire 
power of election and selection of the various members of 
these Boards was left, by ‘‘B’’, in the Boards themselves, 
subject only to approval by the next succeeding General 
Assembly. 

As to “C,”’ which is as follows: 

“That the election, appointment or transfer of all pro- 
fessors and teachers in all seminaries shall be submitted to 
the succeeding General Assembly for its approval, and that 
no such election, appointment or transfer shall take effect, 
nor shall any professor or teacher be inducted into office until 
his election, appointment or transfer shall have been ap- 
proved by the said General Assembly; failure of the General 
Assembly, to which the said elections, appointments or 
transfers are reported for approval, to act thereon, shall be 
regarded as approval thereof, and that all of said professors 
and teachers shall be either ministers or members in good 
standing of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America.” 


38 


“The Committee stated that this was, in substance and in 
effect, what is known as the agreement of 1870. It was in- 
formed that two questions as to the legality of the agreement 
of 1870 had been raised—one as to the power of certain of the 
seminaries to make the agreement, and the other as to the 
power of the General Assembly, which is not a legal entity, 
to make any such agreement. 

‘The Committee stated that there could be no doubt but 
that the Boards of the respective seminaries in 1870, in 
making that agreement giving to the General Assembly the 
right of approval or veto of the election of professors in the 
various seminaries, acted in good faith; and that it was be- 
lieved at the time when the agreement was entered into by 
the respective Boards that they had the power to do what 
they did. It also stated that the adoption of “C,” by making 
it a charter provision, would obviate these objections and 
make the agreement of 1870 valid and effective. 

‘The Committee thinks that if seminary charters make the 
adoption of ‘“C,”’ which is in substance the agreement of 
1870, of doubtful legal validity, it can only be because the 
charters, as viewed by the Boards holding this opinion, make 
the institutions undenominational and that they cannot 
legally be made Presbyterian, as it is eminently desirable and 
necessary that all the seminaries shall be. 

As to “D,” which is as follows: 


“That in the event of the violation of any of the terms of 
said amendments, or the misuse or diversion of the funds or 
property held by them, then the General Assembly shall be 
empowered to provide against such violation of the pro- 
visions of said charters and for the enforcement of the same, 
and for the protection of the trusts on which said property 
and funds are held, in such manner, and in the name of such 
person or corporation, as it may direct by resolution certified 
by its clerk, in any civil court having jurisdiction over the 
corporations whose charters are so amended.” 

“Your Committee stated that this conveys no title in the 
property, and vests no trust in the General Assembly; that it 
does not empower the Assembly directly or indirectly to 
interfere with the title to, or management, use and dispo- 
sition of the funds and property of the respective seminaries. 
In the case of heretical teaching on the part of any professor, 
no valid action could be taken by the General Assembly, until 
that teaching had been adjudged heretical according to the 
Constitution of our Church. And in ease of the violation of 
a charter, no sufficient remedy exists in the independent 
action of the civil authority, which has the right to interfere, 
but which cannot be compelled to do so. 


39 


“In view of the answers of the seminaries, as Aublened | in 
the Appendix, the Committee reports that Gighe and 
Dubuque have adopted all of the recommendations of the 
General Assembly.” (Min. G. A., 1895, pp. 29 to 31.) 

With respect to the theological seminary at Princeton the 
Committee’s report in 1895 stated: 

“The Directors and Trustees of Princeton declare that 
they do not antagonize, but, on the contrary, cordially 
acquiesce in and are in the fullest sympathy with the senti- 
ment of the resolutions contained in the Report of the General 
Assembly’s Committee of Conference with the Theological 
Seminaries, made to the General Assembly at its session in 
1894, namely, ‘That the Church should control the in- 
struction given in its theological seminaries, and that the 
funds held for the purposes of theological instruction should 
be used only for such education in the doctrines set forth in 
the Standards of the Church.’ ”’ 

“The Directors and Trustees further say that they are 
advised by counsel learned in the law, and believe, that the 
charter of the seminary now embodies substantially all that 
the Assembly seeks to accomplish by its recommendations, 
and therefore deem the amendment of the charter by the 
insertion of the same unwise and unnecessary. 


“But they further say, ‘if the Assembly should still be of 
the opinion that such an amendment should be obtained, the 
Boards will endeavor to secure such action as will insure to 
the General Assembly the right to be represented in the 
courts and to enforce its proper control over the seminary 
and its property.” 

“The Committee recommends the Assembly to reply to 
Princeton’s offer, that while respecting the judgment of the 
Boards, and not prepared to say that it is incorrect, the 
Assembly is of the opinion that in order to put the matter 
beyond all possible question, it would be well for the Boards 
to do what they express their willingness to do, viz., to 
endeavor to secure such action as will insure to the General 
Assembly the right to be represented in the courts, and to 
enforce its proper control over the seminary and its property.” 

No action has ever been taken to amend the charter of 
Princeton Seminary to conform with the request of the 
Assembly as expressed in the preceding paragraph. An act 
of the legislature of New Jersey in 1898 would seem to give 
the General Assembly a standing in court to enforce what- 
ever rights it may have. But this is not enough. The Charter 
and By-Laws of the corporation should be revised so that 
litigation to establish the rights of the Assembly may never 


40 


be necessary. Any application to amend the Charter must 
necessarily be made by the Board of Trustees, and the Board 
of Trustees is willing to make such amendment as will insure 
to the Church all the rights which it seems to have been the 
purpose to give the General Assembly. (See ordinance of 
Board of Trustees of December 7, 1924.) 

In 1921 a special committee was appointed to visit the 
theological seminaries and report to the next Assembly. 
Upon the adoption of its report it was continued and en- 
larged and reported again to the Assembly of 1923. Among 
the recommendations in its report which were adopted by 
the Assembly, Recommendation No. 4 is as follows: 

“4. The Assembly presents with approval to the man- 
agement of the theological seminaries the proposal to re- 
organize by a combination of the functions of trustees and 
directors in one body elected for a definite term of years.” 

So far as Princeton Seminary is concerned, it has been 
reported to us by the Board of Trustees that at its meeting 
on November 12, 1923, the attention of the Board was called 
to the action taken by the Assembly, and it was voted to 
refer this matter to the Conference Committee of the Board 
of ‘Trustees to consider and confer with the Conference Com- 
mittee of the Board of Directors. A year later at a meeting 
of the Board of Trustees on November 10, 1924, the following 
action was had, as shown by the minutes: 

“Whereas, the General Assembly has recommended that 
seminaries related to the General Assembly operating under 
dual boards should unite those Boards; 

“Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the President of this Board 
appoint a committee of three, of which he shall be one, to 
meet a similar committee from the Board of Directors to 
consider the question of the union of the two Boards of this 
seminary. We recommend, subject to the approval of the 
Board of Directors, that the President of the Seminary be 
the chairman of such joint committee. 


“The President appointed the following: Judge Rellstab 
and Mr. Holden as the other members of the committee.’ 

It is stated by the Trustees that the Board of Directors 
never responded to the request for a conference upon this 
subject. 

As already stated, any change in the charter of the in- 
stitution must necessarily be applied for by the Board of 
‘Trustees. And it has undoubted power to make such change 
as it desires without consultation with others. The manner 
of doing this is pointed out by the counsel retained by the 
Comuittee at the request of the Board of Trustees, and there 
seems to be no legal obstacle in the way of making such 


41 


changes as the General Assembly has indicated a desire to 
have and the Trustees are willing to make. The Committee 
cap discover no reason why the will of the Assembly should 
not now be given effect. 

At the conference between this Committee and the Board 
of Directors it was reported that some counsel had advised 
against a union of the two Boards. The independent counsel 
retained by the Committee at the request of the Board of 
Trustees calls attention to the laws of New Jersey enacted in 
1918, and amended in 1920, which provides explicitly for the 
amendment of the charter or act or certificate of incorporation 
of any charitable or educational corporation of the State of 
New Jersey, however incorporated or created, which shall 
desire to change its corporate name or the number of its 
officers, managers or trustees; or their or any of their qualifica- 
tions or terms of office or the manner or scope of its work 
within the same general lines as is expressed in its charter or 
act or certificate of incorporation. The provisions for effecting 
such changes are quite simple. Princeton University has 
since taken advantage of the power conferred by the act. It 
would seem that since the Board of Trustees of the Theological 
Seminary at Princeton are willing to apply for a change of the 
charter of the institution there might be adopted, after confer- 
ence with a committee of the General Assembly and a Com- 
mittee of the present Board of Directors, such provisions as 
would guarantee to the Seminary and to the Church all the 
benefits which have heretofore resulted from having a Board of 
Directors appointed by the Assembly and eliminate all the 
inconvenience and difference of opinion that have occurred 
by reason of having two separate Boards, each claiming in 
some instances to have the right of exercising or at least 
participating in the exercise of the same authority and power. 

As illustrating the need of such action the Board of ‘Trustees 
has suggested to this Committee certain facts and incidents 
to which we now make a brief reference. Up to 1870, the 
date of the reunion of the Old and New Schools, the General 
Assembly had exercised the power of electing professors, 
deciding upon their salaries, and making appropriations for 
the current expenses of the seminary. As there was no pro- 
vision in the charter of the Seminary giving to the Assembly 
or to any one else any control over the funds in the hands of 
the Board, the Board of Trustees, we are advised, adopted an 
ordinance or by-law, authorizing the General Assembly to 
make appropriations which would be paid upon the certificate 
of the Stated Clerk of the Assembly. At the time of the re- 
union in 1870 one of the difficulties in the way of reunion was 


42 


the theological seminary. All of the seminaries were not 
willing to accept the Princeton plan, and allow the Assembly 
to elect professors. Acting upon a Memorial presented by 
Union Seminary to the Assembly of 1870, in which the im- 
portance of some uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision 
over the theological seminaries was pointed out, it was pro- 
posed by the directors of Union Seminary that the General 
Assembly adopt it as a rule and plan in the exercise of pro- 
prietorship and control over the theological seminaries, that 
insofar as the election of professors was concerned the Assem- 
bly would commit the same to their respective boards of 
directors, authorizing the directors of each theological sem- 
inary to appoint its professors and report the same to the 
General Assembly, and that no such appointment of pro- 
fessor should be considered as a complete election if disap- 
proved by a majority of the Assembly. This Memorial, 
having been referred to the Committee on Theological Sem- 
inaries, a lengthy report was submitted by that committee to 
the Assembly. It was pointed out that the various seminaries 
in the church were founded at different times and in different 
ways; that their administration was different in method, and 
that in some respects uniformity was impracticable and un- 
desirable, but that it considered the proposal in the Memorial 
of Union Seminary as the ‘‘only mode of unifying all the 
seminaries of the Presbyterian church as to ecclesiastical 
supervision so far as unification is in any way desirable.”’ 
The Committee reported its “‘plan and resolution” to the 
Assembly. Paragraph One accepted the offer of Union 
Seminary to invest the General Assembly with the right of 
veto in that institution and invited all seminaries not then 
under the control of the General Assembly to adopt a similar 
rule. Paragraph Two provided that the boards of directors 
in seminaries under the control of the Assembly should be 
authorized to elect professors subject to the veto of the 
General Assembly. Paragraph Three was a resolution pro- 
viding for the appointment of a committee “to propose such 
alterations in the ‘plan’ for seminaries now under the control 
of the Assembly as shall be deemed necessary to carry into 
effect the principle above stated.’’ Paragraph Four provided 
that in case any seminary already under the control of the 
Assembly should so prefer, its plan should remain unaltered. 
This action of the Assembly on the Memorial from Union 
Seminary is usually referred to as ‘“‘the compact of 1870.” 
It dealt with three different classes of seminaries. With each 
class it dealt differently. In the first class was Union Sem- 
inary alone, the seminary which presented the memorial. 
As to this class the “compact” was an acceptance of Union 


43 


Seminary’s offer to give the Assembly the veto power. The 
second elass consisted of all the seminaries already under the 
control of the Assembly. As to them, the “compact” was an 
expression of willingness on the part of the Assembly to 
permit those seminaries, if they so desired, to elect their own 
professors, subject to veto by the Assembly, and of a willing- 
ness to amend the “plan” of such seminaries accordingly. 
We are advised that the “compact”’ was not, as is sometimes 
supposed, a complete agreement between the General Assem- 
bly and all of the seminaries. It was in fact a complete agree- 
ment with only one seminary, that is, Union Seminary. As 
to all the others it was only a starting point for further 
negotiations. It seems plain that so far as this action of the 
Assembly is concerned, the seminaries occupy entirely differ- 
ent positions. As to Union Seminary, for instance, the 
“compact” was an agreement which, by means of the veto 
power, established a connection, and the only connection 
between the Assembly and Union Seminary. The extent of 
the Assembly’s power as to veto was to be measured wholly 
by the ‘‘compact.” As to Princeton, the situation was 
different. The “compact” without more meant nothing. 
The veto power in the case of Princeton resulted not from 
the “compact,” but from amendments to the “plan.” Con- 
sequently as to Princeton, the extent of the Assembly’s power 
as to veto is measured solely by the “plan.” It seems some- 
times to have been supposed by some that by the ‘“‘compact 
of 1870” the General Assembly relinquished control over the 
instruction at Princeton seminary, the election and removal 
of professors and over other matters which it had theretofore 
exercised, and conferred such power upon the Board of 
Directors; but the “compact,” as we are advised, was not a 
compact with Princeton or any other seminary then under 
the control of the Assembly. Pursuant to the proposal of the 
“eompact of 1870” the Princeton “‘plan’? was amended so 
as to vest in the Directors the power to elect Directors and 
professors, increase or diminish the number of professors and 
fix professors’ salaries, the election and removal of professors 
to be subject to the veto of the General Assembly. (Min. 
G. A., 1870, p. 65. Charter and Plan, Art. III, Sees. 1 and 2.) 
This provision is the source of the authority of the Board of 
Directors and does not change the relationship which had 
always existed between the Assembly and the Board of 
Directors, the relationship, as we understand it, of principal 
and agent. Other provisions of the ‘“‘plan”’ make it clear that 
the Board of Directors remains as it always has been, fully 
subject to the orders of the General Assembly. For the sake 
of clearness, it may be repeated that the Board of Directors 


44 


is not a legal entity. It has no legal existence as a part of the 
corporation. It is merely an agency of the General Assembly 
and we are advised that it can assert no rights adverse to the 
Assembly. 

Keeping in mind these observations, it will be seen how 
differences of opiriion have arisen between the Board of 
Trustees and the Board of Directors. The Board of ‘Trustees 
considered itself the only body constituted by law for the 
operation of the Seminary. The Board of Directors con- 
sidered that it had received certain authority from the 
General Assembly, and that even if certain actions of the 
Directors must receive the approval of the Board of ‘Trustees, 
the latter board had no power to disapprove; for example, 
in the fixing of the salaries of professors it was claimed that 
the Board of Directors had that right, and that if funds were 
in hand the Board of Trustees was required to appropriate 
for the sums fixed by the directors. 

At a joint meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Board 
of Directors on December 22, 1870, the following resolution 
was adopted: 


“Resolved, that we understand it to be the meaning of the 
resolution of the last Assembly relative to this subject (vide 
Min., 1870, Sec. 2, p. 66), of matters relating to the finances, 
fixing the salaries of the professors, the extent of endowment 
and the aid of students, shall be by the Board of Directors 
submitted to the Trustees for their approval; that the acts 
of the Board of Directors of the Princeton Theological 
Seminary affecting the finances of the institution must receive 
the approval of the Board of Trustees as a condition of their 
validity and binding force, and that the two bodies adopt 
such measures to secure conference and co-operation in such 
matters as they may deem expedient.”’ 


For a time, with this understanding, there appears to have 
been no friction. But about 1905, when a legacy of approxi- 
mately one and a half million dollars was bequeathed to the 
Seminary it is stated by the Trustees that the Directors, 
the Faculty joing with them, undertook at that time to 
assume the distribution of this large sum without any refer- 
ence to the Board of Trustees. The Trustees deemed it 
necessary at their meeting December 5, 1905, to take the 
following action: 

“Whereas, in considering and acting upon the report of the 
Committee on Conference on the use and employment of 
the Gelston-Winthrop Memorial Fund, the Boards of Di- 
rectors and ‘Trustees at their meetings of October 10th and 


November 14th respectively, have arrived at conclusions 
differing in some respects; 


45 


And Whereas, it has been the wish of all the members of 
this Board that in the use of this great benefaction a method 
and result should be reached which would be both wise and 
satisfactory, and any difference between the Directors and 
Trustees is a thing greatly to be deprecated; 

Therefore, Resolved, that the Board of Directors and faculty 
be invited to a conference upon the subject matters of differ- 
ence, in the hope that a better understanding and a har- 
monious determination may be attained; 

Resolved, that such conference be held in the old seminary 
library, Princeton, on Tuesday, December 19th next at two 
o’clock in the afternoon; 

Resolved, that the secretary do forthwith send to the 
secretary of the Board of Directors and to the clerk of the 
faculty a notification, making known the time, place and 
purpose of the conference, and to each member of this Board 
a notice of like scope, and further, to send to each. member 
of the Board of Directors a brief note of the points of differ- 
ence between the Boards as revealed by their official action.” 


Conferences between the two Boards were held later, with 
the result that the bequest of a million and a half dollars was 
so distributed as to meet with the assent, if not the approval, 
of the Trustees, the Directors and the faculty; but the in- 
cident demonstrated, in the belief of those members of the 
Board of Trustees who have been longest in service, that agree- 
ments may be forgotten, and as a result of such forgetfulness 
difference, if not discord, may be produced. 

After this incident the Board of Trustecs adopted an 
ordinance (p. 54, Charter and Plan), providing for the ap- 
pointment of a Standing Committee on Conference of three 
members of the Board of Trustees, three members of the 
Board of Directors and three members of the Faculty. It is 
evident that this method of securing co-operation and 
harmony has not been a success. We are advised that the 
Conference Committee is seldom called together, and that 
in the matter of differences arising during the past two or 
three years it was not called together at all. 


Another plan which was followed by the Trustees for a 
while was to fill vacancies as they occurred to a limited extent 
by electing members of the Board of Directors as Trustees. 
It was thought that by this interlocking of the two bodies 
each would be promptly and fully informed of the other’s 
actions and working at cross purposes would thus be avoided. 
We are advised that this plan also proved unsuccessful and 
that it has been abandoned to the extent that only one 
Director now remains as a ‘Trustee, and there seems to be no 
purpose on the part of the Trustees to continue this plan. 


46 


If these differences between the two Boards have been ina 
measure harmonized, it is certain that’ in the matter of 
recent elections, carrying with them the appropriation of 
money, there has been a complete failure to obtain co- 
operation between the two boards. Attention has already 
been called to the action of the Board of Trustees on No- 
vember 12, 1923, calling attention to the recommendation of 
the Assembly of 1923 proposing a reorganization of the 
theological seminaries by a combination of the functions of 
trustees and directors in one body, and the further action of 
the Board of Trustees on November 10, 1924, requesting the 
Board of Directors to appoint a committee of three to meet 
a similar committee of the Trustees to consider the question 
of the union of the two Boards, and failure on the part of the 
Board of Directors, as claimed by the Trustees, to appoint 
such a committee. Subsequent to that time and during the 
course of the proceedings which resulted in the appointment 
of this committee by the Assembly of 1926 the controversies 
in the Faculty and in the Board of Directors seems to have 
been a matter of concern with the Board of Trustees, which 
seem to have a feeling of responsibility in the matter, for we 
find that at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 
9, 1925, the Board adopted the following resolution: 

“Inasmuch as any action of the Board of Directors in the 
matter of the retirement of professors and the election of new 
professors involves the finances of the seminary, which 
finances are the trust of this Board, the Board of Trustees 
respectfully requests the Board of Directors to take no action 
until a conference of the two Boards shall have been had.” 

“And that this action be communicated to the Board of 
Directors at its meeting tomorrow.” 

It appears that the only member of the Board of Directors 
now remaining on the Board of Trustees requested that his 
vote against the adoption of the resolution be entered upon 
the record, and we are advised that no conference upon the 
subject has been had between the two Boards. 

These recitals will be sufficient to show not only how 
differences may arise out of having two Boards, but how 
differences have already arisen which should be avoided. 

The Committee believes that aside from differences which 
have existed or may exist between the two Boards, it is highly 
important that the charter of the Seminary should at least 
be amended in accordance with the recommendations of the 
Assembly of 1894, which the Trustees and Directors of 
Princeton Seminary agreed to do in 1895, assuring to the 
Assembly the unquestioned rights suggested in the negotia- 





47 


tions between the special committee and the seminaries. 
But we further believe that a reorganization providing for 
one Board of administration at the Seminary is no less im- 
portant, and that it will avoid differences and promote 
harmony and result in a defining of the duties of the faculty 
and the officers which has never yet been done, and which 
we believe has very largely contributed to, if it has not been 
responsible for the differences in the faculty which have had 
so much humiliating publicity. 


Concluding Summary of Findings 


The Committee, in view of the facts recited in this report 
and appendix, and also in view of persistent impressions 
forced upon it in the many personal contacts through numer- 
ous and prolonged and patient hearings, would summarize 
its convictions as follows: 

1. The root and source of the serious difficulties at 
Princeton, and the greatest obstacle to the removal of these 
difficulties, seem to be in the plan of government by two 
Boards. 

One illustration suffices to show how differences have 
arisen and yet more serious differences may arise between the 
two Boards. Section 2 of Article VIII of the “Plan” provides 
that “all matters relating to finance, fixing the salaries of 
Professors, the extent of endowment and aid of students, shall 
be, by the Board of Directors, submitted to the Trustees of 
the Seminary for approval.” The ‘Trustees construe this 
section as requiring their approval of the amount of salaries 
paid the Professors, their approval of the distribution of 
funds in aid of students receiving help from the Seminary 
and the extent of endowments. ‘he Directors contend that 
the Trustees have no participating voice in fixing such amounts 
or making such distribution, their only function being to 
make appropriation of the amounts fixed by the Directors, 
provided only that the Trustees have funds in hand out of 
which to make such appropriations. And the Directors have 
assumed to control and apply funds given for endowment 
without first consulting the Trustees. It is obvious that 
such a divergence of opinion in construing what seems to be 
language which is unambiguous has led to an undue contention 
for technical rights. (See resolution of Board of Trustees, 
December 5, 1905, p. 85; also statement of Dr. John Dixon, 
p. 88 in the Appendix.) 

In addition to the above statement see the illuminating 
letter by Dr. Paul Martin to the Chairman of the Assembly’s 
Committee, in the Appendix (p. 102), 


48 


2. The reports of divisions and hostilities in Princeton 
circles have not been exaggerated. These divisions and 
hostilities are not confined to the Seminary campus, but are 
found in the Boards, and, through the Alumni, the report 
of them has gone all over the world. And because of these 
things the good name of Princeton is being injured, and the 
effect of the historic testimony of the Seminary to the Re- 
formed Faith in its purity and integrity is being jeopardized. 


3. Under present conditions the drift of Seminary control 
seems to be away from the proper service of the Church and 
toward an aggressive defense of the policy of a group. The 
citations in the report and appendix show: 


a. The representatives of this group in the Princeton 
Faculty declare there are opposite attitudes so serious ‘that 
no peace between them is either possible or desirable.” 
(Appendix, p. 75.) 


b. Furthermore, this group feels that of right it must rule, 
that it “must by every means in its power seek to secure its 
rightful control of the life of the institution.” (Appendix, 
p. 70. Also paragraph 3 on T., p. 210.) 


4. ‘The Committee reports with deep regret its feeling of 
failure to effect reconciliation between estranged brethren in 
the Faculty. The very latest conference with the: Faculty 
left upon the minds of the Committee the unavoidable con- 
viction that certain Professors were determined not to say 
that they could trust the doctrinal loyalty of some of their 
colleagues, no matter how definitely or how earnestly those 
colleagues affirmed their doctrinal loyalty. A most dis- 
couraging aspect of the whole situation is that this trans- 
parent violation of the Master’s command that His followers 
should love and be kindly affectioned one toward another, so 
far as the Committee was permitted to see, was not having a 
controlling influence in the fellowship of the Faculty. (Appen- 
dix, p. 75.) 


5. Finally, the Assembly’s Committee is fully convinced: 


a. ‘That there is nothing in the sore situation at Princeton 
that should not yield and yield readily to the grace of Jesus 
Christ. 

5, That the President and all the Professors are loyal to 
the Standards of the Church, and to the task of teaching and 
defending the conservative interpretation of the Reformed 
Faith in its purity and integrity. 

c. That no one in the Seminary Faculty or in either 
governing Boards advocates or shows desire for such in- 


49 
clusive policy as would harbor or encourage either in the 
Seminary or in the Church-at-large any influences even 
tending toward departure from the historic position of 
Princeton Seminary. 

d. ‘That what is needed is whole hearted, brotherly co- 
operation in reorganizing the plan of governing Princeton 
Seminary. 

We therefore unanimously submit the following recom- 
mendations. 


Recommendations 


The Committee, after due consideration, unanimously 
offers the following recommendations as its best judgment 
for a procedure on the part of the Assembly, having in mind 
the welfare of the Seminary and the preservation of all the 
precious history, traditions, sentiments, and loyalties of a 
century of service to the Church and the Kingdom of God. 

1. That the Assembly appoint a committee of nine mem- 
bers of whom at least three shall be ruling elders of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America who are 
learned in the law, said committee to be constituted by the 
continuance of the present Committee and the appointment 
by the Moderator of four additional members, two of whom 
shall be members of the Board of Trustees of Princeton 
Seminary, and two of whom shall be members of the 
Board of Directors of Princeton Seminary, with the further 
provision that two of the four new members of the Com- 
mittee shall be ministers and two of them ruling elders; that 
said Committee proceed to confer with the Board of Trustees 
of the Theological Seminary at Princeton and co-operate 
with said Board in obtaining such amendments to the Charter 
of the Seminary and preparing such ordinances or by-laws 
and taking such other action as they may be advised by 
counsel is necessary or proper to establish a single Board of 
Control for said Seminary, define the relationship and recog- 
nize the right of control of the General Assembly under the 
existing trusts, so as to assure the rights of the Presbyterian 
Church in the trust property and the instruction of the 
Seminary; and to co-operate in preparing a complete plan 
for the educational work of the Seminary under the adminis- 
tration of the new Board and under the direction and contro! 
of the Assembly; that in a]] such conferences between said 
Committee and said Trustees the present Board of Directors 
be requested to participate in an advisory capacity by the 
election by them for that purpose of a committee of five of 
their members. The enlarged Committee herein authorized is 
hereby directed by the General Assembly to complete the 
reorganization above directed and report to the next Assembly. 


50 ; 

2. That pending this reorganization, the appointment of 
Professor J. Gresham Machen to the chair of Apologetics be 
not confirmed and that the further consideration of this 
appointment be deferred until after the reorganization pro- 
posed in this report shall have been effected. 

3. That pending the reorganization proposed all other 
nominations or elections to the Faculty be not approved, and 
the further consideration of such appointments be deferred 
until the reorganization proposed shall have been effected. 


Respectfully submitted, 


William O. Thompson, Chairman. 
George N. Luccock 

Walter L. Whallon 

Thomas E. D. Bradley 

Richard P. Ernst 


APPENDIX TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL 
COMMITTEE TO VISIT PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


This Appendix contains certain written papers, which are 
presented in full to the General Assembly. To the above 
statement, one exception must be made, concerning which 
exception a notation is made in the proper place in the body 
of the Appendix. 

In the Appendix will also be found certain verbal state- 
ments, stenographically reported. While these statements 
have not been revised by those making them, copies have 
been filed with the makers of the statements, and the Com- 
mittee has received no criticisms thereof. 


* * * * * 


Written Statement of President Stevenson, Presented at 
the First of the Faculty Hearings 


The action of the faculty at its meeting on October 2nd, 
which is as unique as the supposed breach of faculty etiquette 
deplored, censures the President of the Seminary because of 
his address before the last Assembly. Matters bearing upon 
the life and work of the Seminary came before that body as a 
final court of appeal, and the President sitting as a com- 
missioner was summoned by vote of the Assembly to give 
testimony. His statement was not challenged at the time 
by any member of that ecclesiastical court. It should be 
noted that the Assembly itself has been condemned by a 
leading Director of the Seminary, characterizing its action 
as due to a “coalition of Modernists, Indifferentists and 
Pacifists.’” Members of this faculty would be in entire 
accord with that statement. The Committee will naturally 
wish to have the facts regarding matters which have been 
agitating the Seminary for the past few years. You probably 
will not have time to investigate all of them. The following 
items, however, will prove conclusively, as I see it, that there 
has been in the faculty suspicion, distrust, dissension and 
division, and as I stated before the Assembly, in this Dr. 
Machen is involved. . 

Three years ago this spirit manifested itself in connection 
with the appointment by the Curriculum Committee of the 
Board of Directors, duly authorized to make the appoint- 
ment, of the late Dr. John D. Davis to give instruction in 
Systematic Theology during the illness of the head of the 

ol 


52 


department, Dr. Hodge. At that time a member of the 
faculty, Dr. Machen, endeavored to secure the cancellation 
of this appointment, was the one member of the faculty, who, 
after full discussion at a meeting of the faculty, declined to 
join in a request that Dr. Davis should accept the appoint- 
ment of the Curriculum Committee, and in consequence of 
this there was an agitation here on the campus which brought 
Dr. Davis under suspicion, so much so that he labored under 
the disadvantage, which he felt keenly, of having students 
attend his classes who had been warned not to accept his 
conclusions. 


Two years ago it manifested itself in opposition to the 
candidacy of Dr. Erdman for Moderator, calling forth the 
activities of a Press Bureau of which Dr. Machen was a 
member; the issue of a circular by the minority of New 
Brunswick Presbytery intended to show that in a time of 
crisis Dr. Erdman was not fitted for the Moderatorship, and 
signed by members of this faculty. 


It manifested itself also in the appointment by the faculty 
of Dr. Wilson in place of Dr. Erdman as Student Adviser 
on a motion proposed and advocated by Dr. Machen. 


It manifested itself a year ago in the refusal of the faculty 
to accept the report of a committee, consisting of Drs. Smith, 
Loetscher and the President, and which nominated as special 
preachers, Drs. Covert, Watson and Vance, which report the 
faculty declined to accept, and in a subsequent declaration 
Dr. Machen stated that the ground for his opposition was, 
“they are not Christians.”’ 

It has manifested itself in the re-organization of important 
faculty committees, as is done in politics when a particular 
party has won the election, all appointing power by the 
President being withdrawn and being placed in the hands of 
the faculty itself, coupled with an encroachment upon the 
administrative functions of the President. These are matters 
of common knowledge within the faculty, and display a 
temper which in the language of the report of the Assembly’s 
Committee on ‘Theological Seminaries is subversive of 
Christian fellowship and jeopardizes the usefulness of the 
Seminary. . 

Most of this may be explained by a difference of attitude 
within the faculty towards the Presbyterian Church of today, 
towards General Assemblies and their leadership, the Assem- 
bly of 1924 excepted, and towards the boards, agencies and 
enterprises of the Presbyterian Church. 

This institution was founded an hundred and fifteen years 
ago to raise up “‘a succession of men at once qualified for and 


53 


thoroughly devoted to the work of the gospel ministry, who 
with various endowments suiting them to different stations 
in the Church of Christ, may all possess a portion of thespirit 
of the primitive propagators of the gospel: prepared to make 
every sacrifice, to endure every hardship and to render every 
service which the promotion of pure and undefiled religion 
may require.” Having this end in view, the Seminary was 
to be a nursery of sound learning and of vital piety, and the 
responsibility for the care and usefulness of such an im- 
portant and forward looking agency was placed in the hands 
of a faculty. When one reads the Plan of the Seminary and 
notes what is included under the captions of learning and of 
piety, he must tremble to think of the large, essential and 
serious business with which the faculty is charged. When the 
establishment of one large, central, influential Seminary, the 
Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, was being 
considered, fears were expressed lest it might become an 
ecclesiastical power seeking to supersede or dominate the 
courts of the church, and assurances had to be given that the 
Seminary would mind its own business, in the realization that 
it is an agency of the Church, subject to the explicit pro- 
visions of a constitution and the direct orders of the Assembly. 


To be sure, every professor as an ordained minister, is 
expected to be a faithfulkmember of his own Presbytery, and 
to respond to any call of duty which the Church may issue to 
him, and in line with this, faculty members in years gone by 
have rendered a worthy and memorable service. But should 
the faculty on this or any other account take itself seriously, 
and assume the functions of a board of censors, or a board of 
strategy for the whole Church in general and the Presbyterian 
Church in particular? This is just what has taken place in 
Princeton Seminary within the past three years under the 
active leadership of Dr. Machen. He has made his diagnosis 
of conditions in the Presbyterian Church and has given it 
wide publicity, and he has also prescribed a drastic method of 
treatment as being the Church’s only hope. Some of us have 
sympathized with the diagnosis in part, but we have not been 
able to consent to the proposed treatment, which as suggested 
by the Philadelphia Overture in 1924, was declared uncon- 
stitutional by the General Assembly. A member of our faculty, 
Dr. Hodge, is reported to have objected to plans for aggressive 
evangelism and missionary effort because of the incapacity 
of the Church, due to erroneous doctrines, to promote such 
enterprises. “If a man,” said he, “has a serious disease, you 
don’t send him out into the field to gather a harvest; you 
send him to a hospital to undergo an operation. Precisely 


o4: 


so, but you assure yourself that the one who makes the diagnosis 
is not an amateur and that the one who performs the opera- 
tion is a skilled surgeon, who will not sever the wrong organ 
and will follow antiseptic measures to prevent a malignant 
outbreak.” 


The majority of the faculty have accepted Dr. Machen’s 
diagnosis as to health conditions in the Presbyterian Church, 
and have pinned their hopes in the heroic measures which Dr. 
Macartney proposed. No minority member has taken issue 
with them for doing this, but they, on the other hand, have 
passed judgment upon their non-concurring brethren in the 
faculty and have adopted a policy of suspicion, distrust and 
discrimination against them. Dr. Allis, in an article pub- 
lished in the Philadelphia Presbyterian of April 23, 1925, gave 
two reasons why the faculty decided to appoint Dr. Wilson to 
the position of Student Adviser in place of Dr. Erdman. This 
is one of his reasons: ‘‘The majority of the faculty believed 
that under the conditions with which the Church is confronted, 
the important post of faculty adviser should be held by one 
of the number who fully and clearly represented the majority 
opinion in the faculty.” This can only mean that the ma- 
jority of the faculty hold an opinion regarding conditions in 
the Church and their remedy which it differentiates from the 
opinion of other members of the faculty, and that it feels 
justified in making this differentiation the basis of dis- 
crimination against minority members as to their trust- 
worthiness. 


This raises the constitutional question as to the right of any 
group in the faculty, or member of the faculty, to judge 
colleagues in the matter of ecclesiastical beliefs and attitudes. 
The Board of Directors is the only body which has the right 
to judge in such matters. In the report of the Committee of 
Seven, appointed May 11, 1925, to make a thorough in- 
vestigation of the internal dissension in the faculty, occasioned 
by distrust and a divisive partisan spirit, it is specifically 
stated that all the members of the faculty are true to the 
standards of the Church and their inauguration pledge, and 
that there is no room for doubt or criticism as to their doc- 
trinal beliefs or attitudes towards conditions in the Church, 
and the report closes with an exhortation to every member of 
the seminary to promote the work of the Seminary by such 
restraints as will illustrate to the world the ties of fellowship 
and affection which unite every member of this institution in 
the common service of our Lord. 


The partisan attitude of the faculty majority disregards 
this timely exhortation and is a violation of the proprieties 


aye) 


which should be observed between members of the faculty 
who alike have approved standing according to the expressed 
opinion of the Directors and in the eyes of the Presbyterian 
Church. The attitude of the faculty. majority towards the 
Assembly and the Church, as one of suspicion, distrust and 
hostility, has also resulted in a divisive spirit among the 
students and in a departure from the historic position of the 
institution. This may be illustrated by the League of 
Evangelical Students which Dr. Allis, in the article already 
noted, connects with the selection of Dr. Wilson as student 
adviser. He represents the majority of the faculty in sym- 
pathizing with and approving the plans of this new organiza- 
tion. I cannot take time at this point to explain this League 
but I wish to place in the hands of the Assembly Committee a 
copy of the Constitution and two important papers repre- 
senting the views of opposing groups in the Seminary, such as 
have characterized the divisive measures of this League since 
its inception. (This Constitution and these two documents 
are reproduced on pages 37 to 42 of the Transcript, having 
been furnished to the Committee at the meeting with the 
Alumni.) 


Regarding it I wish to make a few observations. It es- 
tablishes a doctrinal test as the basis of good standing in the 
Seminary, administered by students, which is at variance 
with the terms of admission to the Seminary laid down in 
the Plan and stated in the catalogue, and is a departure from 
the historic position of the Seminary. In 1835 Dr. George 
Junkin, then President of Lafayette College, endeavored to 
secure from the General Assembly a doctrinal test to exclude 
from the Seminary, students whose views might be regarded 
as being unsound. The Assembly decided that no additional 
regulations were needed besides those already vested in the 
Plan of the Seminary. Following this action the Biblical 
Repertory for July, 1885, made the following comment 
which embodies the broad-minded view of Princeton theo- 
logical education—in vogue since that day—but which is 
now being challenged. 


“Has it never happened that young men, who entered a 
theological seminary with all their prepossessions hostile to 
the peculiar doctrine of its teachers, have been completely 
reconciled and convinced of their truth? Or if this complete 
conversion does not take place, is it not better (assuming the 
orthodoxy of the teachers) that these young men, if they are 
to enter the church, should have an opportunity of learning 
what orthodoxy is from its advocates, rather than from the 
misrepresentations of its opposers? Is error so much more 


56 


powerful than truth, that we should dread their collision as 
fatal to the latter? For our part we heartily wish that all 
the young men, provided they be sincerely pious, whose pre- 
possessions are unfavorable to orthodoxy, might pass through 
an orthodox seminary. If they do not prove better ministers 
and more correct theologians than if driven to institutions of 
an opposite character, we think something must be sadly 
amiss with orthodoxy or its teachers. It is not seemly for 
the advocates of truth to be too timid. If it cannot defend 
itself, we shall have to give it up.” 


This League disassociates this Seminary from Seminaries of 
our own Church under Assembly control. There are now 
according to the published report of the League, fifteen 
Seminaries in the organization and the one other Seminary in 
it belonging to our denomination, a colored institution, is 
the Lincoln University School of Theology. This institution 
is manifesting a broad catholicity as it continues its relation 
to the body from which the League has seceded, the Middle 
Atlantic Division of Theological Seminaries, and thus belongs 
to both. 


It may be claimed that since other Seminaries, Western, 
McCormick, Louisville, Lane, San Francisco, will not accept 
the doctrinal basis and the fundamentalist aims of the 
League, they condemn themselves as being liberal. But 
apart from the consideration as to whether one Presbyterian 
Seminary has a right to erect a doctrinal barrier for students 
between herself and institutions of our own Church, thus 
promoting a divisive spirit between the future ministers of 
the Church, they are all the daughters of this Seminary who 
have a right to look to this institution for a conserving, 
steadying influence, such as we cannot exert by withdrawing 
our students from their fellowship and by segregating them 
with the students of the small institutions of small com- 
munions. According to the list of Seminaries printed in the 
League’s report, apart from our own, they are in the main the 
institutions of secession bodies. ‘They represent the spirit 
of division, and Princeton Seminary’s alignment with them 
is a declaration to the effect that this institution repudiates the 
long established policy of the Presbyterian Church as re- 
gards co-operation and union, and identifies herself with the 
small institutions and sects which are committed to separa- 
tion and secession. More extraordinary still is the fact that 
in the membership of this League there are fifteen Bible 
Schools or Institutes. These are the exponents of permillen- 
nialism and of short-cuts into the ministry, against which 
Princeton Seminary has been opposed unflinchingly through- 
out all her history until now. 


57 


No institution has taken such a firm stand as Princeton 
has for sound learning, based upon a knowledge not merely 
of the English Bible, but of the original languages of the 
Scriptures, and here we are stepping down from our exalted 
position of scholarship, that we may join hands with Bible 
School students, practically all of whom have had no college 
education such as our Church requires for her ministers, and 
all of whom are receiving superficial training, thus nurturing 
“that religion without sound learning’ which the founders of 


this Seminary declared “must ultimately prove injurious to 
the Church.”’ 


A generation ago Union Seminary, fretting under eccle- 
siastical domination, rebelling against the supposed ultra 
conservatism of the General Assembly and the Presbyterian 
Church, broke the compact of 1870, swung off to the extreme 
left wing in order to become an inter-denominational, strictly 
speaking an undenominational, Seminary for destructive 
liberalism. Shall Princeton Seminary now, fretted by the 
interference of the General Assembly, in rebellion against the 
Presbyterian Church as at present organized and controlled, 
because of the assumption that a radical anti-Christian 
liberalism is dominating the courts, agencies and enterprises 
of said Church at home and abroad, shall this institution now 
be permitted to swing off to the extreme right wing so as to 
become an interdenominational Seminary for Bible School- 
premillenial-secession fundamentalism? This, Mr. Moderator, 


as I see it, is the big question which your Committee ought 
to consider. 


The situation is made all the more difficult by the con- 
viction on the part of the majority of the faculty that this 
revolt against influences and policies supposed to be con- 
trolling factors in the Seminary and in the Church for several 
years past is in answer to prayer, and marked by the presence | 
and power of the Holy Spirit. I quote from Dr. Machen’s 
book, ‘‘What is Faith?’ Page 42. He declares: “It (a 
spiritual advance) has been signally manifested at the in- 
stitution which I have the honor to serve. The morale of 
our theological student body has been becoming rather low: 
there was marked indifference to the central things of the 
faith: and religious experience was of the most superficial 
kind. But during the academic year, 1924-25, there has been 
something like an awakening. Youth has begun to think for 
itself ; the evil of compromising associations has been dis- 
covered: Christian heroism in the face of opposition has come 
again to its rights; a new interest has been aroused in the 
historical and philosophical questions that underlie the 


58 


Christian religion; true and independent convictions have 
been formed. Controversy, in other words, has resulted in 
a striking intellectual and spiritual advance. Some of us 
discern in all this the work of the Spirit of God. And God 
grant that his fire be not quenched.”’ 


In answer to this I present to the Committee a statement 
prepared at the close of the Seminary year, 1924-25, and 
signed by nineteen members of the Senior Class, all of them 
occupying some official position in the Students’ Association, 
or in Class or Club organizations. This statement deploring 
the dissensions that have been aroused by the agitation 
carried on in the interests of the League of Evangelical 
students closes with these words: “It is inimical to the best 
interests and welfare of the Seminary not only in its in- 
tellectual and spiritual life, but in its influence upon prospec- 
tive Seminary students.”’ Last year, 1925-26, the men who 
were interested in the League and had seen the results of 
bitter dissensions, refrained from a repetition of the agitation 
that marked the preceding year. This autumn, however, 
encouraged by the fact that every member of the Cabinet of 
the Students’ Association, which embraces the entire student 
and faculty membership of the Seminary, is a member of the 
League, an attempt was made to commit the entire student 
body to membership in this League, and a drive was started 
to secure the three-fourths vote necessary to do this. The 
movement did not sueceed. Let me call your attention to 
the document prepared by the leaders of the opposition, 
stating why they could not join in what they regarded as a 
divisive and demoralizing movement. 


This agitation in the Seminary is a repercussion of what 
has been going on in the Presbyterian Church. In the issue 
of the Presbyterian, May 14, 1925, Dr. Machen discussing 
the Present Situation in the Presbyterian Church, made this 
declaration: ‘During the year prior to 1923 it might have 
seemed to a casual observer as though the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America were to relinquish 
the Christian faith without even a struggle. The old forms 
indeed were preserved, but the reality was apparently gone. 
It was considered bad taste to defend the basic facts of Chris- 
tianity in the Boards and Agencies of the Church, and in 
countless pulpits the gospel was never heard.’’ Then follows 
his interpretation of subsequent events, closing with the claim: 
“A great evangelical movement is in progress in our church 
and we hope and pray that it may be continued until the 
full unity of the church’s witness-bearing is restored.” The 
answer to this is found in the appointment by the Assembly 


o9 


of 1925, following the suggestions of Dr. Mark A. Matthews, 
of a Commission of Fifteen members “‘to study the present 
spiritual condition of our church and the causes making for 
unrest, and to report to the next General Assembly, to the 
end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church 
may be assured.” 


Upon the report of this Commission as presented to and 
adopted almost unanimously by the Assembly of 1926, it is 
not necessary for me to make any comments, except to say 
that the chief opposition, the only serious opposition to this 
report, was voiced by two officials of Princeton Seminary, 
Dr. Macartney, a Director, and Dr. Allis, a Professor. This 
brings us face to face with the real seriousness of the present 
situation. The Presbyterian Church with surprising and 
gratifying unanimity has accepted the report of the Special 
Commission of 1925 as furnishing a common ground upon 
which all members of the Church may stand, and from which 
by the blessing of God and the leading of His Spirit, all may 
move forward to more complete harmony of opinion and to 
full brotherly accord in spirit. However, at the close of the 
Assembly, Dr. Macartney, regarded by the majority of the 
faculty and by the majority of the Board of Directors as the 
outstanding exponent of Princeton Seminary’s historic atti- 
tude towards the Presbyterian Church, her courts and her 
agencies, issued a statement in which he characterized the 
events of the last Assembly as a victory won by “‘a coalition of 
modernists, indifferentists and pacifists, which will open the 
eyes of Presbyterians all over the world to the fact that our 
church is rapidly drifting from its historic and fearless witness 
to the great truths of the Reformed Faith, and will unite in 
solid ranks all those who are determined to stand for our 
previous and blood-bought inheritance.” 


Is this institution of which the General Assembly is the 
patron and the fountain of its power to be administered as a 
sacred trust under such a representation? Can it train 
Presbyterian ministers as loyal supporters of the Boards and 
Agencies of our Church if it be true as Dr. Machen has 
declared, that prior to the awakening which he and Dr. 
Macartney brought about, there was a ‘‘period of the dead- 
liest peril, when loyalty to church organization was being 
substituted for loyalty to Christ, and at Board meetings it 
was considered bad form even to mention, at least in any 
definite and intelligible way, the cross of Christ.’’ Is it any 
wonder that the Board of Foreign Missions and the Board 
of National Missions, incensed by these and similar sweeping 
assertions, have requested Dr. Machen to furnish facts and 


60 


proofs, and although an extended correspondence has been 
carried on, no facts or proofs thus far have been produced? 
Is this Seminary to be what its charter prescribes, “The 
Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the U. 
S, A.” or to be the institution of a turbulent section in our 
own and other churches? Herein lie the differences which we 
sincerely hope and pray you may adjust and harmonize. 


* * * ok * 


Memorandum Concerning Some of the Issues Upon 
Which There Has Been Difference of Opinion in the 
Faculty. Submitted on Behalf of the Majority 
of the Faculty, by William P. Armstrong, to the 
Committee Appointed by the 138th General Assem- 
bly to Visit Princeton Theological Seminary. Meet- 
ing at Princeton, on November 23, 1926. With a 
Paper on the Historical Position of the Seminary, 
by Caspar Wistar Hodge. 


I. The Address 


Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: 

In response to the invitation communicated to the Faculty, 
in a letter of October 9th from your Chairman to President 
Stevenson, asking the members of the Faculty to meet with 
your Committee and to present such statements as they 
might be willing to make, the Faculty advised your Chairman 
through its Secretary of their readiness to co-operate with 
your Committee and asked that opportunity be given them 
to appear before your Committee as a Faculty. They are 
not advised concerning the legal issues which may be in- 
volved in the present meeting but, without prejudice to these, 
they understand that they have appeared at your request 
to aid you, in so far as they can, in the discharge of the 
function assigned to you by the General Assembly. 

The other members of the Faculty who with myself con- 
stitute the majority of the Faculty, composed of seven of its 
eleven voting members—namely, Dr. William Brenton 
Greene, Jr., Dr. Geerhardus Vos, Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, 
Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, and Dr. 
Oswald 'T. Allis—have asked me to present to you a state- 
ment on our behalf, to be supplemented by such statements 
as we may wish to make, each on his own behalf. We recog- 
nize that responsibility rests on us for certain decisions of 
the Faculty, to which some publicity has been given. We are 
not unaware of the misunderstanding, and the consequent 


‘Minutes of the General Assembly, 1926, p. 174. 


61 


misinterpretation of our motives and of the significance of 
these decisions, which has developed not only in the com- 
munity here but among the Alumni of the Seminary and in 
the Church. We have thought it wise heretofore to offer no 
explanation and to make no statement in common’. But 
while we are now willing to present to you the facts which 
conditioned and the reasons which determined our judgment 
in these matters, we desire, in view of this widespread mis- 
understanding, to reserve the right to make such further 
use of our statements to your Committee as to us may seem 
proper. 

In behalf, therefore, of the above named members of the 
Faculty, I desire to submit the following statement, in which 
they severally concur for substance, concerning some of the 
issues upon which there has been difference of opinion in the 
Faculty. | 

II. The Public Policy of the Church 


In 1920 a Plan of Organic Union of Evangelical Churches 
was introduced in the 132d General Assembly at Philadelphia 
by the President of the Seminary, acting as Vice-Chairman 
of the Committee on Church Co-operation and Union.? 
Professor Erdman was a member of the Committee which 
prepared the Plan and favored its adoption.* The Plan was 
adopted by the General Assembly and was sent down to the 
Presbyteries.°® 

The Plan, and in particular its unevangelical Preamble,°® 
was opposed in public print by Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield 
in an article entitled ‘In Behalf of Evangelical Religion,’’’ 
by Dr. William Brenton Greene, Jr.,’ by Dr. Caspar Wistar 
Hodge,*® by Dr. J. Gresham Machen,!® and by Dr. Oswald T. 


*Individuals have made statements on one or another aspect of the situation, 
such as Dr. Machen’s reply to Professor Erdman in The Presbyterian of 
February 5, 1925, and Dr. Allis’ article on ‘Princeton Seminary and its 
Student Adviser” in The Presbyterian of April 23, 1925. 

Minutes of the General Assembly, 1920, p. 98. 

‘Minutes of the General Assembly, 1920, p. 423. 

*Minutes of the General Assembly, 1920, p. 121. 

6’This was argued by Dr. Warfield and others. Moreover, the Committee itself, 
after the Plan had been rejected by the Presbyteries, seems to have conceded 
that the evangelical basis of the Plan was at least not unmistakably clear 
when it sought authorization to continue negotiations “looking to actual 
Organic Union of Evangelical Churches on a clear and unmistakable evan- 
gelical basis.””?’ (Minutes of the General Assembly, 1921, p. 84.) 

*The Presbyterian of September 23, 1920, p. 20. 

s“Further Inconsistencies and Dangers of the Plan of Union for Evangelical 
Churches,”’ The Presbyterian of January 6, 1921, p. 8. 

*The Plan of Union as Explained by Dr. Richards,’ The Presbyterian of 
October 21, 1920, p. 8; “The New Testament Conception of the Unity of the 
Christian Church,’ The Presbyterian of November 4, 1920, p. 9. 

10Hor Christ or Against Him,” The Presbyterian of January 20, 1921, p. 8; 
“The Second Declaration of the Council on Organic Union,’ The Presby- 
terian of March 17, 1921, p. 8. 


62 


Allis.!!. When the Plan came before the Presbytery of New 
Brunswick it was opposed by Dr. Hodge, by Dr. Machen, 
and by Dr. Davis; it was supported by Dr. John Dixon 
(among others) who adduced as evidence of its soundness 
the fact that it had been adopted by the General Assembly 
and was advocated by President Stevenson and Professor 
Erdman. The Plan was defeated in the Presbytery of New 
Brunswick and was rejected by the Church.’” 

It appeared thus early that different views were held by 
members of the Faculty concerning the public policy of the 
Church and while the Plan of Union was the occasion, the 
real issue concerned the purity and integrity of the Church’s 
witness to the Reformed Faith. 

This issue emerged again in connection with the Philadel- 
phia Overture to the 135th General Assembly at Indianapolis, 
in 1923, in the matter of Dr. Fosdick’s preaching in the First 
Presbyterian Church of New York. In this issue the majority 
of the members of the Faculty supported the policy advocated 
by Dr. Macartney and this policy met the approval of the 
General Assembly at Indianapolis, as was evidenced by the 
adoption of the Minority Report of the Committee on Bills 
and Overtures.'? It further met the approval of the 136th 
General Assembly at Grand Rapids in 1924, as was evidenced 
both by the election of Dr. Macartney as Moderator and by 
the report of the Judicial Commission,!* as a result of which 
Dr. Fosdick withdrew from the First Presbyterian Church 
of New York. At that Assembly Professor Erdman, with 
pre-Assembly support from President Stevenson, ran against 
Dr. Macartney. When the Assembly met again at Columbus, 
in 1925, Professor Erdman was elected Moderator. 


III. Professor Erdman and the Faculty 


In the meantime much publicity had been given to Pro- 
fessor Erdman’s relations with the Faculty. It was alleged 
that Dr. Machen had made personal attack on Professor 
Erdman,'? and that the Faculty had removed Professor 
Erdman from the position of Student Adviser, which position 
he had held for eighteen years.1® 


“The Fundamental Objection to the Overture on Organic Union,” The Pres- 
byterian of February 10, 1921, p. 10. 

Minutes of the General Assembly, 1921, p. 41f. 

Minutes of the General Assembly, 1923, p. 252f. 

‘Minutes of the General Assembly, 1924, p. 194f. 

The following statement appeared in The Princetonian of February 2, 1925: 

“Since taking up his present position last fall, Dr. Erdman has been subjected 

to bitter attack from his 'undamentalist colleagues and The Presbyterian, 

a Philadelphia weekly.” 

The Trenton Evening Times of April 4, 1925, and recently in President Stev- 

enson’s speech before the General Assembly at Baltimore, as reported in The 

New York Times of June 3, 1926. See Document 2, 


16 


63 


In regard to the former, the reverse is true. Professor 
Erdman made a bitter and public personal attack on Dr. 
Machen;'’ and while not specifically charging Dr. Machen 
with responsibility for an editorial statement to which he took 
exception,!® he yet declared that this statement reflected 
their moral temper and their modes of thought’’—that is, the 
moral temper and modes of thought ‘‘of those members of 
the Faculty who are also editors of The Presbyterian’’—and 
definitely accused them of ‘‘unkindness, suspicion, bitter- 
ness and intolerance.’ When it was publicly pointed out by 
Dr. Machen that he was the only member of the Faculty 
who was also an editor of The Presbyterian, but that he was 
not responsible for the statement alluded to and that evidence 
justifying the terms in which he had been characterized had 
not been brought to his attention, Professor Erdman made 
no response. 


In regard to the letter, there is no record in the Minutes 
of the Faculty that Professor Erdman was ever appointed 
Faculty Adviser of the Students’ Association. In 1907 Pro- 
fessor Erdman was appointed a Committee of Conference 
with Students on Speakers at Missionary and other Re- 
ligious Meetings.’ After the election of President Stevenson, 
the Faculty by formal action placed the re-appointment of 
all committees in the hands of the President;?? and there is 
no record thereafter in the Minutes of the Faculty that Pro- 
fessor Erdman was appointed Faculty Adviser of the Students’ 


17Professor Erdman’s letter to The Presbyterian, which appeared in The Pres- 
byterian Advance of January 22, 1925, and was reprinted in The Presby- 
terian of February 5, 1925, contained the following statement: ‘You in- 
timate that a division exists in the Seminary Faculty. No such division 
exists on points of doctrine. Every member of the Faculty is absolutely loyal 
to the Standards of our Church. The only division I have observed is as to 
spirit, methods or policies. This division would be of no consequence were 
it not for the unkindness, suspicion, bitterness and intolerance of those 
members of the Faculty who are also editors of The Presbyterian. 

“The serious aspect of your article is, that it reflects their moral temper 
and their modes of thought, and embodies the spirit by which The Presby- 
terian at present is controlled. Your spirit is that of unfairness, of fanaticism, 
of suspicion and faction. Your evident purpose is to disrupt the Presby- 
terian Church. You are succeeding only in dividing its evangelical forces. 
The great majority of Presbyterians are sane and sound and conservative. 
They are certain to repudiate your statements, disavow your aims and 
deplore your spirit.” 


18See The Presbyterian of January 15, 1925, p. 12. 
19Minutes of the Faculty of April 6, 1907, p. 92. 
20Minutes of the Faculty of May 7, 1915, p. 309. 


64 


Association.2!. Before the issue was raised concerning the 
source of Professor Erdman’s appointment as Faculty Ad- 
viser, it was the opinion of several members of the Faculty, 
and apparently of Professor Erdman himself,”? that he sat 
with the Cabinet of the Association as Faculty Adviser by 
invitation of the Cabinet. Certainly the Cabinet believed 
that the choice of a Faculty Adviser was their function, a 
difference of opinion having arisen only as to whether this 
function was the prerogative of the President of the Associ- 
ation or of the Cabinet. The President of the Association, 
acting upon the former assumption, actually did invite 
Professor Erdman to become the Faculty Adviser for the 
ensuing year and Professor Erdman, after deliberation, 
accepted the invitation.2? Thereupon, at a specially called 
meeting of the Cabinet, the invitation of the President of the 
Association was revoked.24 When it then appeared that the 
Cabinet could not reach an agreement about the choice of 
an Adviser, the Cabinet through its Secretary addressed a 
formal request to the Faculty that it appoint one of its 
members to sit in an advisory capacity to the Students’ 
Association.° 


21The Secretary of the Faculty reported on March 28, 1925, after an examination 
of the Minutes: ‘‘The only record in the Minutes in the matter of the Asso- 
ciation and its Adviser is in the Minutes of April 6, 1907.’’. He also made the 
following statement concerning the Minutes of the Students’ Association: 
“The Minutes of the Students’ Association begin with 1905-06. There is no 
indication in it of the adoption of the present constitution of the Association. 
The constitution is printed in one of the Students’ Handbooks, 1915-16.... 
There is nothing in the Minutes in regard to the appointment of a Faculty 
Adviser.” The present constitution provides in Article 5, on Committees: 
“The Chairman shall be appointed by the President and each committee 
shall consist of five student members, not more than two from any one class, 
appointed by the President in conjunction with the Chairman, and one of 
the Professors shall act as an advisory member to each committee.” 

228ee Document 1. 

23See Document 1. 

*4Minutes of the Students’ Association of March 21, 1925, p. 215. 

*>*Minutes of the Students’ Association, p. 216; Minutes of the Faculty of March 
21, 1925, p. 538. The letter from the Cabinet, as recorded in the Minutes of 
the Students’ Association, is as follows: 

Stuart Hall, Princeton, New Jersey, March 21, 1925. 
The Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, 
Princeton, New Jersey. 

We, the Cabinet, of the Student Association of Princeton Theological 
Seminary, request the Faculty to appoint a member of their honorable body 
this 21st day of March, 1925, to sit in an advisory capacity to the Student 
Association. 

Signed August H. Wessels, Secretary of the 
Students’ Association. 


When this request came before the Faculty, Professor 
Erdman was absent. It was then agreed that action on the 
request be deferred one week and the Secretary of the Faculty 
was requested to bring to the Faculty at its next meeting 


65 


such information from the Minutes as bore upon the matter. 
When the Faculty met again, Professor Erdman was present. 
It was moved. that reply be made to the Students that Pro- 
fessor Erdman had served as Adviser for many years, faithfully 
and well, and that the Faculty saw no reason to change the 
appointment.”® <A substitute motion was made nominating 
Dr. Wilson; and the vote being taken, Dr. Wilson was ap- 
pointed.?’ This decision of the Faculty was not determined 
by personal considerations, nor was it the expression of a 
judgment concerning the theological orthodoxy of the two 
nominees; but it was the expression of the Faculty’s opinion 
that a sympathetic attitude towards the plans and purpose 
of the majority of the Students’ Association (which plans 
had been submitted to the Faculty and had received its 
approval’’) was an indispensable qualification for the discharge 
of this function at this time. Professor Erdman had made 
it evident that he did not possess this qualification. For the 
Faculty to have appointed Professor Erdman, after the 
Cabinet had revoked the invitation of the President of the 
Association, would have been an arbitrary exercise of power, 
implying a repudiation of its own favorable judgment con- 
cerning the plans of the Association. 


IV. President Stevenson and the Faculty 


In speaking before the General Assembly at Baltimore, the 
President of the Seminary said, as reported in the New York 
Times of June 3, 1926: ‘There are honored men on this 
platform who could not be invited to the Princeton Theo- 
logical Seminary because of the line of demarcation drawn by 


6The original motion is not of record but is reproduced from memory. 

*7Minutes of the Faculty of Mareh 28, 1925, p. 538: ‘In response to a request 
of the Cabinet of the Students’ Association of the Seminary that the Faculty 
appoint one of its members to act in advisory capacity to the Association, 
the Faculty took action appointing Professor Robert Dick Wilson, D.D., as 
Faculty Adviser to the Association, it being understood [that! the super- 
vision of the missionary and other [religious] meetings of the Association be 
part of his function.”’ 

*8Minutes of the Faculty of October 25, 1924, p. 530: ‘Having heard a pres- 
entation by representatives of a Committee of the Students’ Association 
which was appointed to consider the organization of a Students’ Organization, 
to be composed of Evangelical Student Associations in Theological Seminaries 
of the Middle Atlantic States, the Faculty expresses its hearty approval of 
the withdrawal of our Students’ Association from the existing body, and 
sees no reason to object to the further steps which our Students’ Association 
has taken.” 

Minutes of the Faculty of February 28, 1925, p. 537: “Having received 
a communication from a Committee of the Students’ Association charged 
with the formulation of plans for a League of Evangelical Students, in which 
report is made of progress and plans are outlined for the drafting of a con- 
stitution of such an association, [the Faculty] expresses its interest in the 
plans and purpose of the Students’ Association, and finds no occasion to 
take exception to the plans as outlined in the report of the Committee. 


66 


those who believe that the time has come to make the differ- 
ences clear.’’ It is a reasonable inference from this statement 
that the President was alluding to the action of the Faculty 
on the report of the Committee on Preachers, which is of 
record in the Minutes of the Faculty of October 18, 1924. 

The Committee on Preachers consisted of Dr. J. Ritchie 
Smith, Chairman, Dr. F. W. Loetscher and President Stev- 
enson. It had been appointed by the President or upon his 
nomination, the majority of the Faculty having no repre- 
sentation on it. Sometime afterwards, on April 4, 1925— 
one week after the appointment of the Faculty Adviser of 
the Students’ Association—a Committee on Committees was 
appointed, of which Professor Erdman was a member.’® 
Upon recommendation of this Committee the Faculty took 
action limiting the term of Committee appointments to one 
year and placing the nominating function in the hands of a 
Nominating Committee.*° Later the members of the Com- 
mittee on Committees were appointed the Nominating 
Committee ;*! but when this Committee reported giving to 
the majority of the Faculty majority representation on the 
Committee on Preachers, Professor Erdman presented a 
minority report giving majority representation to the min- 
ority of the Faculty and recorded his protest against the 
action of the Faculty in adopting the recommendation of the 
majority of the Committee.** 

In. its report of October 18, 1924, the Committee on 
Preachers nominated principals and alternates for the six 
invitations to preach in Miller Chapel which are issued 
annually by the Faculty, including an invitation to the 
Moderator of the General Assembly.*? When the report was 
read, certain members of the Faculty felt that they would 
prefer some of the alternates to some of the principals. The 
reasons for this preference may have differed, but it is not 
unnatural to suppose that they expressed in one or another 
form the same underlying difference of principle which has 
characterized the attitude of the Faculty in the various issues 
with which it has been confronted, or the difference between 


**Minutes of the Faculty of April 4, 1925, p. 539. 

*°Minutes of the Faculty of May 2, 1925, p. 541. 

*!Minutes of the Faculty of October 3, 1925, p. 546. 

*?Minutes of the Faculty of October 10, 1925, p. 547f. 

*8Minutes of the Faculty of October 18, 1924, p. 529: ‘The Committee on 
Chapel Preachers reported through Dr. Loetscher, and the Secretary was 
instructed to invite the following: the Rev. John McNaugher, D.D., of 
Pittsburgh; the Rev. C. E. Macartney, D.D., of Philadelphia; Prof. Tali- 
ferro Thompson, of Union Seminary, Va.; the Rev. H. H. McQuilken, D.D., 
of Orange, N. J.; the Rev. A. H. Barr, D.D., of McCormick Seminary; the 
Rey. David DeForest Burrell, D.D., of Williamsport, Pa.; and as an alternate, 
the Rev. George P. Horst, D.D.” 


67 


those who favor an inclusive policy for the Seminary and 
those who adhere to its doctrinal position as the fundamental 
law of its constitution and therefore hold that this must be 
regulative also of its several functions. ‘The majority of the 
Faculty favored inviting for this service those who were 
known or believed to be in cordial sympathy with the doc- 
trinal position of the Seminary. Obviously the Faculty is 
not an ecclesiastical court and the expression of its prefer- 
ence in issuing invitations to the pulpit of the Chapel cannot 
reasonably be construed as involving a judgment concerning 
the doctrinal position of the many who are not invited. 
Even in the choice among different nominees, the decision 
might be due to definite knowledge of the one which was not 
possessed in the case of the other. But if in its decision on 
this occasion the Faculty erred through inadequate knowledge 
or through lack of knowledge in thinking that one nominee 
was not in sympathy with the doctrinal position of the 
Seminary but did not so err in the case of the other nominee, 
no injustice was done since there was no abridgment of the 
rights either of the nominees, or of the minority of the 
Faculty who may have judged differently but were free to 
vote, or of the President, except upon the erroneous assump- 
tion that his office conferred the right of dictation. ‘The 
majority of the Faculty, therefore, hold that the President 
had no just ground of complaint against the decision of 
the Faculty and no right to attack that decision before the 
General Assembly. Being unable to approve of the manner 
in which the President alluded to their action in this matter, 
or of his equally unjustified characterization of their action 
in the appointment of a Faculty Adviser of the Students’ 
Association, the Faculty formally expressed their disap- 
probation of his conduct in a resolution, a copy of which is 
hereto appended. *4 

When Dr. Machen was elected Professor of Apologetics, 
Professor Erdman and President Stevenson took a prominent 
and public part in opposition to his confirmation by the 
General Assembly at Baltimore, Professor Erdman referring 
to allegations of personal disqualification on the ground of 
“temper and methods of defense’; and President Stevenson, 
beside publicly arraigning the Faculty for its actions, formu- 
lating a policy for the Seminary to which the majority of 
the Faculty are opposed and which they believe to be con- 
trary to the historical policy of the Institution and hurtful 
to its usefulness in teaching and defending the Reformed 
Faith. The Faculty, of course, has no function in the choice 


34See Document 2, 


68 


of a professor, which is the prerogative of the Board of 
Directors, but the majority of the Faculty fully concurred in 
the Board’s judgment concerning Dr. Machen’s eminent 
qualifications for the Chair to which he was elected and they 
deeply regret the action of Professor Erdman and of Presi- 
dent Stevenson in opposing the decision of the Board of 
Directors. 

In his speech before the General Assembly at Baltimore, 
the President formulated a policy for the Seminary which 
would make it representative of ‘‘the whole Presbyterian 
Church” and thus inclusive of the different doctrinal points 
of view which now exist in the Church. In doing so the 
President has raised a fundamental issue in regard to the 
character and the future of the Institution. The majority 
of the Faculty maintain that the Institution has been his- 
torically affiliated with that doctrinal point of view in the 
Church known as the Old School. They are not aware that 
the reunion of the Old and New Schools required the sur- 
render by the Institution at that time of its doctrinal po- 
sition and they are unwilling that this position be surrendered 
now when the differences in the Church are concerned not 
with two forms of the Reformed Faith but with the very 
nature of evangelical Christianity itself.°° They believe that 
the Seminary has a function to serve in the Church as a 
conservative Institution, and they claim that the Seminary 
has a right to continue in the future as in the past its loyal 
devotion to and defense of the Reformed Faith from its his- 
torically conservative point of view. The doctrinal position 
of the Institution has been the source of that continuity 
which has characterized the distinguished service the Sem- 
inary has rendered to the Church in the past and is, in their 
judgment, equally essential to the future usefulness of the 
Seminary. ‘The majority of the Faculty, therefore, reject the 
public intimation by the President that this has made or 
would make of the Institution a Seminary of a “particular 
faction.” 

Moreover it should be pointed out that the definition of 
the function of the President in the Plan of the Seminary, 
Article ii (as amended in 1920)*°, gives to the President no 
right to have a policy for the Seminary other than that set 
forth in the Plan. And the Plan specifically states that it is 
the design of the Seminary ‘‘to form men for the Gospel 
ministry who shall truly believe, and cordially love, and 


See Document 3: Statement to a Committee of the Board of Directors by 
Caspar Wistar Hodge; also Appendix: Paper on ‘“The Historical Position 
of the Seminary,” by Caspar Wistar Hodge. 

s6Charter and Plan, 1915, p. 9. 


69 


therefore endeavor to propagate and defend, in its genuine- 
ness, simplicity and fulness, that system of religious belief 
and practice which is set forth in the Confession of Faith, 
Catechisms and Plan of Government and Discipline of the 
Presbyterian Church; and thus to perpetuate and extend the 
influence of true evangelical piety and Gospel order.’’?’ 
This, the majority of the Faculty believe, commits the In- 
stitution not only to the system of doctrine set forth in the 
Confession of Faith but to the defense of that system against 
those forms of doctrine not only without but within the 
Church which depart from its purity. And as they hold that 
such departure exists in the Church,** they contend that the 
Institution cannot be made a Seminary of the whole Church 
today without neglect of the obligation laid on it by its Plan. 

This brief review of some of the issues upon which there 
has been difference of opinion in the Faculty discloses a con- 
dition which has profound significance for the life of the 
Institution. The fact that differences of a serious kind do 
exist in the Faculty is evidenced by the records of the voting 
in the meetings of the Faculty and in the Courts of the 
Church, as well as by the expression given to these differ- 
ences in the public press and in the statement of the President 
before the General Assembly. The fact, therefore, cannot 
well be denied or ignored or its consequences be avoided. 
But serious as the situation is, the majority of the Faculty 
are convinced that the interests of the Seminary can be 
served not by any attempt to minimize or to suppress the 
differences but only by the elimination of their chief cause. 
This cause they believe to be the endeavor by the President 


37Charter and Plan; 1915, p. 16. 

38This is sufficiently evidenced by the following statement of the “Auburn 
Affirmation” of May 5, 1924, p. 6: ‘This opinion of the General Assembly 
(of 1923) attempts to commit our church to certain theories concerning the 
inspiration of the Bible, and the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resur- 
rection, and the Continuing Life and Supernatural Power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. .. . But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories 
allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts 
and doctrines of our religion... .’”’ The Report of the Special Commission 
of 1925, while adducing the appointment of the Commission as “evidence 
that the Assembly believed in its own evangelical unity and in the evangelical 
unity of the Church at large,”’ and while affirming that ‘‘as far, however, as 
the Commission has been able to learn, there is in the Presbyterian Church 
no second party such as is described in this quotation” (above on the same 
page), yet continues: ‘But even though our Church as a whole is evangelically 
united, it is held by some that ultra liberal views have crept in and that 
there are ministers from whose preaching and faith the supernatural note of 
the Gospel has faded. On the other hand, it is held by some that there are 
men of ultra exclusive views who deny the true liberty of Christ and who mis- 
represent the Gospel to men. To the extent that these things are true, they 
constitute grave causes of unrest which should be dealt with first by brotherly 
counsel and then, if need be, by suitable Presbyterial action.’”? (Minutes 
of the General Assembly, 1926, p. 71.) 


70 


to maintain here an administrative policy which is opposed 
to the purpose of the Seminary as set forth in its Plan and 
exemplified in its history. The majority of the Faculty 
therefore hold that, until this fundamental issue is settled 
by the Board of Directors, they must continue to contend 
against a policy which they believe to be opposed to the 
purpose for which the Seminary was founded, and must seek 
by every means in their power to secure for that purpose its 
rightful control of the life of the Institution. 


V. Documents 


Document 1. Statement by the President of the Students’ 
Association. | 

The following signed statement was made by William 
Clarence Wright, President of the Students’ Association for 
1925-26 on May 18, 1925: 

“T was elected President of the Students’ Association, in 
Miller Chapel on the second Thursday of March in company 
with the Secretary and Treasurer. Previous to this the 
Junior Class had elected their representative and immediately 
after the Middle Class elected their representative. Within 
two weeks of this time, I appointed the five men to chair- 
manship representation in the Cabinet. I was informed by 
my predecessor that I was to make the appointment or give 
an invitation to a member of the Faculty to represent them 
in the Cabinet. This understanding was strengthened by 
Dr. Erdman’s statement at the beginning of the Students’ 
Association meeting on the second Thursday of March, when 
he expressed his appreciation of having served as adviser 
during the previous year, and incidentally mentioned, 
jokingly, that this was not a plea for re-election. No appoint- 
ment of Faculty Adviser occurred until after the first Cabinet 
meeting. Immediately after adjournment of this first Cabinet 
meeting, there was informal discussion among some members 
of the Cabinet as to who should be Faculty Adviser. I an- 
nounced that I understood that as Cabinet Maker that was 
within my province and that I had made no appointment as 
yet. During that week I conversed with Dr. Erdman and 
asked him his attitude toward the proposed League. That 
morning he said that he had received letters concerning his 
attitude toward matters presented in a letter sent by a sub- 
committee of the Committee of Fifteen (of the Students’ 
Association). At that time he said he was not sure whether 
he desired to serve in the capacity of Faculty Adviser this 
year. I urged him to defer his final decision until the next 
day. ‘To this he consented. The next morning I visited him 


71 


at his home and he said, ‘I can see no reason why I cannot 
serve with you this year.’ I thanked him, shook hands and 
departed. ‘That evening a petition for a special meeting of 
the Cabinet signed by the required three members was left 
upon my table. In accordance with this request a meeting 
was held Saturday morning, March 21st, but altered in time 
from 10:30 to 9:10, so that any action, if necessary, could be 
presented to the Faculty for their consideration that morning. 
During the business session one member of the Cabinet 
moved that the appointment by the President of Dr. Erdman 
as Faculty Adviser be revoked. This motion carried by five 
to one vote, nine members being present, the President in 
the chair and two others not voting. Of these five, voting 
in the affirmative, three were elected members of the Cabinet. 
Thereupon there was a discussion of appointment. It was 
proposed that the President make another appointment 
which he declined to do. Then a motion was made and 
seconded that a certain member of the Faculty (Dr. Arm- 
strong) should be the Faculty Adviser for this year. I then 
suggested that rather than another Faculty member being 
selected, that the matter be referred to the Faculty and that 
they be invited to appoint a Faculty representative. This 
suggestion was incorporated into a motion and this motion 
superseded the motion on the floor and was adopted without 
dissent and the Secretary was instructed to communicate this 
action immediately to the Faculty.”’ 


Document 2. Resolution of the Faculty expressing Dis- 
approval of President Stevenson’s Speech before the General 
Assembly in Baltimore. 

‘Whereas it was credibly reported in the New York Times 
of June 3, 1926, that the President of the Seminary made sub- 
stantially the following statement when speaking before the 
138th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
U.S. A., in session at Baltimore, against the confirmation of 
the election of the Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Assistant 
Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, to the 
Stuart Professorship of Apologetics and Christian Ethics: 

‘There is not a doctrinal difference in our Faculty, and 
there are no contentions about any theological disagreements. 
The committee last year found every member of the Faculty 
loyal, but exhortations of the committee were not regarded 
and personal differences of opinion continued, with oppro- 
bium cast on various members of the Faculty. It is because 
some of us stand for the spirit manifested in the report of the 
Committee of Fifteen that there is difficulty. There are 
honored men on this platform who could not be invited to 


/ 


72 


the Princeton Theological Seminary because of the line of 
demarcation drawn by those who believe. that the time has 
come to make the differences clear. Their plea is that now 
is the time to draw lines in our Church. This election, I say, 
is involved in that situation. It is involved, as it was last 
year, in discrediting Dr. Erdman and opposing him as 
Moderator, and also in deposing him from the position he 
had held for twenty years as Student Adviser. Why, one 
student came to me and asked, “In what way was Dr. Erd- 
man a heretic?” It is manifested this year in opposition to 
the report of the Commission of Fifteen. We are the agency 
of the combined Old School and New School and my am- 
bition as President of the Seminary is to have rt represent 
the whole Presbyterian Church and not any particular 
faction of it. What I want is to have the light thrown on 
me, on members of the Faculty and the whole institution. If 
there is to be judgment, let it fall where it will and let the 
Seminary go forward in the traditions of its founders.’ 


“Now, therefore, the Faculty places this statement of the 
President on its records with expression of its disapprobation, 
holding that the right of appeal by any of its members who 
may feel himself aggrieved by its action should take the 
form either of recorded protest or of complaint; and that if 
complaint is to be made, notice thereof should be filed with 
the Faculty and the complaint taken to the Board of Directors, 
to which the Faculty and its several members are directly 
responsible. In regard to the substance of this statement, 
in so far as it concerns action by the Faculty, the Faculty is 
content to abide by the record of fact and the validity of the 
reasons for the actions to which the President has thus 
publicly taken exception.” 

In transmitting this resolution to the Board of Directors 
the Faculty adopted the following explanation of its action: 

“Because of the President’s speech at Baltimore, the 
Faculty believes that it is confronted with a situation unique 
and without precedent in the history of the Seminary, in the 
presence of which it cannot remain silent without neglect 
of a duty which it owes to itself. 


“It will be observed that the resolution deals only with 
one aspect of the President’s speech—an aspect which is 
perhaps of least significance, but the only aspect which falls 
within the jurisdiction of the Faculty. The speech contains 
statements of fact and expressions of opinion from which the 
Faculty dissents, but for these the President is, in the opinion 
of the Faculty, responsible to the Board of Directors. For 
the observance, however, of the proprieties involved in his 


73 


membership in the Faculty the President is, like every other 
member, responsible to the Faculty; and therefore, being 
convinced that these proprieties have been disregarded by 
the President, the Faculty has formally expressed and re- 
corded its disapproval.” (Minutes of the Faculty of October 
2, 1926.) 

Document 3. Statement (in substance) made to the Com- 
mittee of the Board of Directors appointed to investigate the 
conditions in the Seminary in 1925, by C. W. Hodge. 


Ist. The difference of opinion here in the Faculty is 
absolutely fundamental. It concerns, not the beliefs of any 
members of the Faculty, but the fundamental importance of 
the witness of this Seminary and of the Presbyterian Church 
to the Reformed Faith to which both the Seminary and the 
Church are absolutely committed. 


2nd. The situation in the Church today as contrasted with 
that before the separation of the Old and New Schools. In 
the disruption period (1837-8) it was a difference between 
two types of Calvinism. Princeton Seminary was bound to 
the Westminster Confession, as was and is the Presbyterian 
Church. The Princeton Faculty at that time were some- 
times called “middle men,” 7.e., middle men of the Old 
School, not because they mediated between Old and New 
School types of Calvinism, but because, while wholly Old 
School in their doctrinal position, they opposed the split in 
the Church because they held that the New School peculi- 
arities, even when of the Hopkinsian type, did not destroy 
the integrity of the Calvinistic system. But Dr. Charles 
Hodge held that Taylorism, 2.e., Pelagianism or naturalism, 
should not be tolerated in the Church. 


Today the debate concerns to a large extent, the objective 
and factual basis of Christianity and its authoritative inter- 
pretation in the New Testament—that is to say, all that 
distinguishes Christianity from the natural religious senti- 
ment of man, perhaps with a sentimental attachment of that 
sentiment to Jesus Christ. The so-cailed Fundamentalists 
have been contending simply for common Christianity. 


3rd. The difference between the President and the minority 
of the Faculty on the one hand, and the majority of the 
Faculty on the other hand, I think, is a difference of attitude 
toward theological controversy. ‘The minority believe in 
peace and work, the majority believe in controversy in 
defense of the truth and work. If the faith is to be prop- 
agated for man’s salvation, it must be maintained, ex- 
pounded, and defended. 


74 


As a witness to the President’s attitude, notice the Union 
program of 1920 which he defended before the General 
Assembly. This proposed Union was to be on the basis of 
an unevangelical creedal preamble, and this creedal statement 
was attacked in The Presbyterian by Drs. B. B. Warfield, 
Greene, Machen,.and myself, and was disapproved by the 
majority of the Faculty. In the Presbytery of New Bruns- 
wick it was opposed in speeches by Drs. Davis, Machen, and 
myself. The President subsequently stated that he was re- 
porting for Dr. Roberts, but he did advocate this union 
movement in that Assembly, though he voted against it 
the following Spring in the Presbytery of Baltimore. 

In the Assembly of 1925, as Chairman of the Committee 
on Co-operation and Union, the President advocated a 
tentative union with certain Congregational Churches. He 
stated that it was to be in harmony with the “interests of 
historic Presbyterianism,’’ but that such a union could not 
be secured on the basis of the Westminster Confession. He 
did not, however, define wherein lay the point of distinction 
between historic Presbyterianism and the Westminster Con- 
fession, but he said the union must be a matter of ‘‘give and 
take.” 

Dr. Erdman’s attitude toward these movements I believe 
to be favorable. In the discussion of the proposed union of 
1920 in the Presbytery of New Brunswick, Dr. Erdman, if I 
remember rightly, was absent, but the argument was made 
on the floor of Presbytery that the plan must be all right 
because Drs. Stevenson and Erdman favored it. 


In this respect Drs. Stevenson and Erdman, in my judg- 
ment, represent a doctrinal indifferentism which is opposed 
by the majority of this Faculty who regard it as unfortunate 
that Princeton Seminary should be thus publicly identified 
with these movements supported by all liberals. | 


It may be added that Dr. Coffin expressed himself in the 
New York Presbytery to the effect that this report of Dr. 
Stevenson on the last of the above mentioned plans of union, 
was the only thing in that Assembly that pleased him. 

‘This general attitude in the Church toward the importance 
of truth and especially the Reformed Faith reflects itself in 
the differences in the Faculty, and naturally also among the 
students. 


The Evangelical League I regarded as a great witness on 
the part of the students to the evangelical Faith. It was 
spontaneous. ‘The majority of the Faculty wished to en- 
courage it. Drs. Stevenson and Erdman, for reasons un- 
known to me, were not in sympathy with it. 


79 


So far as I am aware the only personal element injected into 
our affairs here was the violent attack upon Drs. Machen 
and Allis by Dr. Erdman for having been in some way re- 
sponsible for a statement in The Presbyterian about which 
they knew nothing. 

In conclusion, I would add, that it thus appears that two 
entirely opposite attitudes toward truth or doctrine exist 
here and in the Church at large, so that no peace between 
them is either possible or desirable. 


VI. Appendix 
The Historical Position of Princeton Seminary 


President Stevenson, in his speech at the last Assembly at 
Baltimore in opposition to the confirmation of Dr. Machen’s 
election to the Chair of Apologetics and Christian Ethics, 
stated that it was his (Dr. Stevenson’s) ambition to make 
Princeton Seminary the Seminary of the whole Church. 
Replying to Dr. Craig in The Presbyterian, Dr. Stevenson 
stated that he understood that he was speaking to a body 
having a constitution, meaning that his ambition was to 
make this Seminary, a Seminary of the whole Church under 
the constitution of the Church. 

We do not believe that Princeton Seminary can be made 
a Seminary of the whole Church, 17.e., representing the whole 
Church doctrinally, even under the constitution of the 
Church, without departing from its historical position, be- 
cause of the prevailing latitude in the interpretation of our 
doctrinal standards. 

In the Report of the Special Commission of 1925 to the 
last Assembly (p. 10), it is said: ‘There has been and is 
divergence of view with regard to the so-called Five Points 
of the General Assembly’s deliverances of 1910, 1916, and 
1928. Some have held that it was altogether competent 
and right to single out these doctrines and to declare them 
essential. Others have held that such discriminatory selection 
was not warranted, that some of the doctrines are not stated 
in terms either of the Scriptures or of the Standards, and 
that the word ‘‘essential’’ is itself indefinite and open to 
misconception. For whom and to what are these doctrines 
essential?”’ 

Now whatever may be said as to the right of an Assembly 
to make any binding doctrinal declarations, the fact is that 
the plenary inspiration (and hence the inerrancy) of the 
Scriptures, the Virgin Birth and bodily Resurrection of 
Christ, His substitutionary Atonement by which He rendered 
a Satisfaction to Divine Justice, and His personal Return, 


76 


are not only explicitly affirmed in the Westminster Con- 
fession, but are also essential to that common Christianity 
adhered to by the Romish, Greek, Lutheran, and Reformed 
Churches, and essential to the Christianity of the New 
Testament. Two of these doctrines—the Virgin Birth and 
the bodily Resurrection of tur Lord—were held to be essential 
to Christianity even by the Socinians who attacked the other 
doctrines of common Christianity and of Christendom. 

It is quite clear, therefore, that such differences of view 
as to what is essential to Christianity do exist in the Church, 
and that as long as such divergencies do exist, Princeton 
Seminary cannot represent the whole Presbyterian Church 
doctrinally without departing from its adherence to the 
Faith of Christendom, not to speak of the Reformed Faith 
to which Princeton Seminary is committed. 

But not only are there differences of view as to what is 
essential to Christianity, there are denials of some of these 
doctrines of common Christianity and our Confession 1n the 
Presbyterian Church today. As proof of this see Dr. W. P. 
Meirill’s ‘‘Liberal Christianity,’’ chapter four,’ in which the 
doctrines of imputation, the substitutionary doctrine of the 
Atonement, and the authority of Scripture in matters of 
doctrine are denied; also his Sermon, “‘An Evolutionist at 
Calvary,” in which he affirms that the death of Christ is a 
symbol of self-sacrificing love which is the principle of evolu- 
tion, and that it is the Cross in our hearts, not the Cross on 
Calvary, which saves. Also as a further representative ex- 
ample, see Dr. Henry Sloane Coffin’s book, ‘‘Some Christian 
Convictions,’’*° in which both the doctrine of the Two- 
Natures of Christ and the Satisfaction doctrine of the Atone- 
ment as taught in the Westminster Confession and held by 


39Dr. W. P. Merrill in his book, “Liberal Christianity,’ chapter four, denies the 
authority of the Scripture in matters of doctrine, also the substitutionary 
doctrine of the Atonement. Also in the Sermon referred to above he states 
a symbolic and moral influence view of the Atonement, saying that evolution 
proceeds by self-sacrificing love, that Darwin’s view of the principle of 
evolution is wrong, and that the death of Christ symbolizes the true principle, 
so that it is the Cross in our hearts, not the Cross of Calvary which saves. 
These are denials of doctrines, not only asserted in the Westminster Con- 
fession, but by all Christian Creeds, as well as by the New Testament writers. 

Dr. Coffin, “Some Christian Convictions” (p. 116), speaking of Christ, asserts 

. that His “immanent Deity” does not submerge His human personality. By 
thus speaking of Jesus as a human person, Dr. Coffin implicitly denies the 
doctrine of the Two-Natures, which he explicitly denies in the same chapter. 
This doctrine is held by the entire Christian Church in its Creeds, and its 
denial, and the consequent view of Christ as a human person, reduces His 
Deity to the indwelling of God in a man or else the Ritschlian idea that 
because Christ reveals God’s love, He has the value of God to faith. Also 
in the same book, p. 151ff, the Satisfaction doctrine of the Atonement of the 
New Testament, the Christian Church, and the Westminster Confession is 
denied, and a moral influence view substituted for it. 


V7 


common Christianity are denied. See also the Auburn 
Affirmation which makes the extraordinary assertion that 
several theories of the Atonement are to be found in the 
Westminster Confession, whereas the only doctrine of the 
Atonement there asserted is the substitutionary and Satis- 
faction doctrine which is explicitly stated. (Westminster 
Confession, Chapter viil, Section 5.) 

But these divergencies and differences of today are very 
different from, and far more radical than those which sep- 
arated the Old and New School and which concerned the 
doctrines of imputation, inability, and the reference of the 
Atonement. Any attempt, therefore, to draw any inferences 
or analogies from the opposition of the Princeton Faculty to 
the division of the Church at that time, is historically un- 
justifiable. The Princeton Seminary Faculty in the dis- 
ruption period, though they held that the New School errors 
did not destroy the integrity of the Reformed Faith, and so 
could be tolerated in the Presbyterian Church, nevertheless 
adhered strongly and loyally to the Old School type of Cal- 
vinism. It is therefore preposterous to suppose that they 
would have tolerated any divergencies of view as to doctrines 
which are held in common by all branches of the Christian 
Church as essential to historical Christianity, to which fact 
the Creeds of Christendom bear witness. 


What, then, was the position of Princeton Seminary in the 
disruption period, and what was its attitude on the doctrinal 
questions of that day? 

At that time there were four parties in the Church: (1) 
Those who maintained the extreme type of error called 
“Taylorism,” 7.¢e., a naturalizing Pelagianism. (2) The New 
School party. These were for the most part Calvinists, 
but were to some extent given to the peculiarities of the New 
England theology, especially Hopkinsianism. Also they 
were disposed toward a tolerance of departures from the 
Old Calvinism more radical than their own. (8) The Old 
School party which adhered to generic Calvinism. (4) The 
Princeton branch of the Old School party which was some- 
times called “the Middle party” because they differed in 
certain points of policy from the other branch of the Old 
School, though they agreed absolutely with them in doctrine. 
The Princeton party, 2.e., the Faculty of Princeton Seminary, 
was, as Dr. A. A. Hodge says (Life of Charles Hodge, p. 290), 
wholly Old School. Of this there was never any doubt. 
Hence, as Charles Hodge said, their “feelings were always, 
and their judgment generally,” in harmony with their Old 
School brethren and their measures of reform. They simply 


78 


protested against some of the Old School measures and es- 
pecially because they believed that some of the Old School 
leaders did not discriminate between Hopkinsian errors which 
should be tolerated and Taylorite errors which should not 
be tolerated at all. Dr. Charles Hodge said (Retrospect of 
the History of The Princeton Review, 1871): “In all the 
controversies culminating in the division of the Church in 
1837-8, the conductors of this Review were in entire sym- 
pathy with the Old School party.’’ They differed from them 
in three points, viz., (1) the Act and Testimony drawn up in 
Philadelphia in 1834, (2) the wisdom of some of the acts of 
the Assembly in 1837, and (3) their attitude toward doctrinal 
differences. We speak only of the last point. The Princeton 
Faculty distinguished between doctrinal differences which 
did not destroy the integrity of the Calvinistic system, and 
those which did. Dr. Charles Hodge (op. cit.) puts it thus: 
“Tf a man holds that all mankind, since the fall of Adam, and 
in consequence of his sin, are born in a state of condemnation 
and sin, whether he accounts for that fact on the ground of 
immediate or mediate imputation, or on the realistic theory, 
he was regarded as within the integrity of the system. I 
he admitted the sinner’s inability, it was not regarded as 
a proper ground of discipline that he regarded that inability 
as moral, instead of natural as well as moral. If he taught 
that the work of Christ was a real satisfaction to the justice 
of God, it was not made a breaking point whether he said it 
was designed exclusively for the elect, or for all mankind. 
... We do not say, he continues, that the diversities of view 
above referred to are unimportant. We regard many of 
them as of great importance. All we say is that they have 
existed and been tolerated in the purest Calvinistic Churches, 
our own among the rest.*! 

“But within the last forty years other doctrines came to 
be avowed. Men came to teach that mankind are not born 
in a state of sin and condemnation; that no man is chargeable 
with either guilt or sin until he deliberately violates the 
known law of God; that sinners have plenary ability to do 
all that God requires of them; that regeneration is the sinner’s 
own act; that God cannot control the acts of free agents so 
as to prevent all sin, or the present amount of sin in a moral 
system; that the work of Christ is no proper satisfaction to 


“1Of course Dr. Charles Hodge was aware that the doctrine of the universal 
reference of the Atonement was one ground, among others, on account of 
which the Calvinistic Church in Holland excluded the Armenians at the 
Synod of Dort. This doctrine is also excluded by the Westminster Con- 
fession (Chap. viil, See. 8), though it has been tolerated in the Presby- 
terian Church. 





79 


divine justice, but simply symbolic or didactic, designed to 
produce a moral impression on intelligent agents; that 
justification is not judicial, but involves the setting aside of 
the law, as when the Executive remits the penalty incurred 
by a criminal. The doctrines of this latter class were re- 
garded as entirely inconsistent with ‘the system of doctrine 
taught in our Confession of Faith’.”’ 

From this it appears that the so-called Princeton party 
were wholly Old School in doctrine; that they were willing to 
tolerate New School views which they regarded as erroneous 
but not as destructive of Calvinism; but that they held that 
not only naturalistic Pelagianism, but also the denial of the 
vicarious and satisfaction doctrine of the Atonement, which 
denial we have seen exists in the Presbyterian Church today, 
had no place in the Church under the Confession of Faith. 

It need only be added that in 1867-70 Dr. Charles Hodge 
opposed vigorously the reunion of the Old and New Schools. 
He believed that the New School maintained a latitude 
different from that of the Old School. He held that if not for 
themselves, yet for others they interpreted the formula of 
subscription to our doctrinal standards in a different sense, 
and that, as Dr. A. A. Hodge puts it, Dr. Charles Hodge 
believed that even if the Old School should produce all the 
heretics, the New School would provide their most influential 
defenders. He resisted once again the current of the times, 
he wrote and spoke against the reunion, and drove while ill to 
Presbytery to cast his final vote against it. 

The conclusions from this brief historical sketch are: 

Ist. That the Faculty of Princeton Seminary always has 
been whole heartedly attached to the pure Gospel of God’s 
sovereign grace or the principles of pure and consistently 
evangelical religion as held by the Old School type of Cal- 
vinism, and that after the reunion in 1870 Princeton Sem- 
inary continued to maintain the same doctrinal principles. 

2nd. That though they tolerated the New School views, 
it is utterly inconceivable that they would have tolerated 
any form of so-called ‘“‘Modernism”’ as it exists in the Pres- 
byterian Church today. | 


3d. That President Stevenson’s ambition to make Prince- 
ton Seminary representative of the whole Presbyterian Church 
today, if successful, would entirely remove this Seminary 
from its historic position. 


The differences here today are deep, fundamental, and 
also doctrinal, inasmuch as they concern a difference of at- 
titude as to the fundamental importance of doctrine and as 
to the absolute importance of the Church’s witness to the 


SO 


Reformed Faith in its purity and integrity—the Reformed 
Faith which Princeton Seminary was founded to expound and 
defend, and which she has always regarded as vital to the 
maintenance of evangelical religion in its purity. 


C. W. Hodge. 


Additional statement by Dr. Hodge: 

It has sometimes been mistakenly supposed that there is a 
“Princeton Theology.’’ Drs. Alexander and Charles Hodge 
always repudiated this idea. Princeton Seminary has always 
taught and upheld the theology of the Westminster Con- 
fession—the majesty and sovereignty of Almighty God, the 
total inability of fallen man to save himself, and that the 
whole of salvation is to be ascribed to the power and grace of 
God. This is simply the pure and consistent form of evangeli- 
calism which says, with Paul, “by grace have ye been saved, 
through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is God’s gift.” 

This generic Calvinism has been taught in Princeton 
Seminary under the specific form of the Covenant Theology, 
so richly developed in the Westminster Confession, and 
grounded in the Scripture statement, “I will be your God, and 
ye shall be my people.” 

The newer modifications of Calvinism have passed away, 
and this pure and consistent form of Christian supernaturalism 
and evangelicalism alone stands as an impregnable barrier 
against the flood of naturalism which threatens to over- 
whelm all the Churches of Christendom. ‘Soli deo gloria” may 
well be called the motto of Princeton Seminary, as it is of 
all true theology and religion. 

C. W. Hodge. 


Princeton, N. J., December 17, 1926. 
The Reverend Wiliam O. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., 
Columbus, Ohio. 
My Dear Dr. Thompson: 

In the matter of the Memorandum which I submitted to 
the Committee appointed to visit Princeton Seminary, I re- 
spectfully request the permission of the Committee to append 
the enclosed Amendments, together with the accompanying 
Explanations. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy ot 
this letter to each member of the Committee and of en- 
closing with it a copy of the Amendments and Explanations 
for their information. 

Yours very truly, | 
William P. Armstrong. 


81 


Amendments and Explanations Thereof Appended to 
the Memorandum Submitted to the Committee 
of the General Assembly Appointed to Visit Prince- 
ton Seminary. 

Amendments 


1. Page 8, line 2: Omit the words: ‘‘and apparently of 
Professor Erdman himself.’’ (See p. 64, ante.) 

2. Page 9, after the second paragraph of foot-note 3: 
Add: Minutes of the Faculty of April 25, 1925, p. 540: 
“Twenty-five students presented, through Dr. R. D. Wilson, 
the following: ‘To the Faculty: We respectfully request the 
Faculty approval for the calling of a meeting of all those 
interested in forming a Princeton Theological Seminary 
Chapter of the League of Evangelical Students, to be held 
in Miller Chapel on Tuesday, April 28, at 8 P. M. We further 
respectfully request Faculty approval for the formation of 
such a chapter, as provided in the Constitution of the League, 
Section 3, Paragraph 3. A copy of this Constitution is ap- 
pended hereto.’ The requests were on motion granted.”’ (See 
p. 65, ante. This follows footnote 28.) 

3. Page 13, paragraph 2, line 12: For ‘‘evangelical Chris- 
tianity’’ read ‘“‘common historical Christianity.” (See p. 68, 
line 23, ante.) 

4, Page 13, paragraph 2, lines 2 and 3: To the words, 
“representative of the whole Presbyterian Church” add a 
foot-note: “Quoted for substance only as indicated on 
page 18, line 4.”’ (See p. 68, line 4, ante.) 


Explanations 


1. Professor Erdman has informed me that he did not 
hold the opinion attributed to him on the basis of his remark 
at the meeting of the Students’ Association which is quoted 
on page 16, line 16. I have expressed to him my regret for 
my erroneous inference. 

2. The record of this action was overlooked but was kindly 
brought to my attention by the Secretary of the Faculty and 
is added in the interest of completeness. 

3. The adjective ‘‘evangelical’’ is not strictly accurate, 
although in its present popular usage its meaning has been 
somewhat broadened. My meaning, however, will, I think, 
be made clearer by the less inclusive terms. 

4, President Stevenson at the Faculty hearing took ex- 
ception to the accuracy of this quotation, intimating that 
in his speech at Baltimore he had made use of a document 
which he had read to the Board of Directors and which he 
asked permission to submit to the Committee. When asked 


82 


by the Chairman if I was willing to have the statement which 
I had quoted corrected to conform to what the President had 
said, I readily consented. Since then I have written to the 
President asking him to give me the exact form of his state- 
ment as he remembered it or, if he was quoting from a docu- 
ment, the exact language of the document. To this inquiry 
he has replied that he cannot remember the exact form of his 
statement but that his meaning was different from my un- 
derstanding and interpretation of his statement as reported 
in the New York ‘Times. 


* * *f * * 


From the Minutes of the Faculty of Princeton Theo- 
logical Seminary, of its Meeting of October 2, 1926. 


The Faculty adopted the following resolution and ordered 
that it be entered upon the record and transmitted to the 
Board of Directors: 

‘(Whereas it was credibly reported in the New York Times 
of June 8, 1926, that the President of the Seminary made 
substantially the following statement when speaking before 
the 138th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the U. S. A., in session at Baltimore, against the confirmation 
of the election of the Reverend J. Gresham Machen, D.D., 
Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Ex- 
egesis to the Stuart Professorship of Apologetics and Christian 
Ethics: 

‘There is not a doctrinal difference in our Faculty, and 
there are no contentions about any theological disagreements. 
The Committee found last year every member of the Faculty 
loyal, but exhortations of the Committee were not regarded 
and personal differences of opinion continued, with the op- 
probrium cast on various members of the Faculty. It is 
because some of us stand for the spirit manifested in the 
report of the Committee of Fifteen that there is difficulty. 
There are honored men on this platform who could not be 
invited to the Princeton ‘Theological Seminary because of the 
line of demarcation drawn by those who believe the time has 
come to make the differences clear. ‘Their plea is that now 
is the time to draw lines in our Church. This election, I say, 
is involved in that situation. It is involved, as it was last 
year, in discrediting Dr. Erdman and opposing him as Mod- 
erator, and also in deposing him from the position he had 
held for twenty years as Student Adviser. Why, one student 
came to me and asked, “‘In what way was Dr. Erdman a 
heretic?” It is manifested this year in opposition to the 
report of the Commission of Fifteen. We are the agency of 


83 


the combined Old School and New School and my ambition 
as President of the Seminary is to have it represent the 
whole Presbyterian Church and not any particular faction 
of it. What I want is to have the light thrown on me, on 
members of the Faculty and the whole institution. If there 
is to be judgment, let it fall where it will, and let the Sem- 
inary go forward in the traditions of its founders.’ 

‘‘Now therefore the Faculty places this statement of the 
President on its records with expression of its disapprobation, 
holding that the right of appeal by any of its members who 
may feel himself aggrieved by its action should take the 
form either of recorded protest or of complaint; and that if 
complaint is to be made, notice thereof should be filed with 
the Faculty and the complaint taken to the Board of Di- 
rectors, to which the Faculty and its several members are 
directly responsible. In regard to the substance of the state- 
ment in so far as it concerns action by the Faculty, the 
Faculty is content to abide by the record of fact and the 
validity of the reasons for the actions to which the President 
has thus publicly taken exception.” 

The Faculty adopted the following explanation of the 
above resolution, and ordered it transmitted to the Board of 
Directors: 

“Because of the President’s speech at Baltimore, the 
Faculty believes that it is confronted with a situation unique 
and without precedent in this history of the Seminary, in the 
presence of which it cannot remain silent without neglect of a 
duty which it owes to itself. 

“It will be observed that the resolution deals only with one 
aspect of the President’s speech—an aspect which is perhaps 
of least significance, but the only aspect which falls within 
the jurisdiction of the Faculty. The speech contains state- 
ments of fact and expressions of opinion from which the 
Faculty dissents, but for these the President is, in the opinion 
of the Faculty, responsible to the Board of Directors. For 
the observance, however, of the proprieties involved in his 
membership in the Faculty, the President is, like every 
other member, responsible to the Faculty; and therefore, 
being convinced that these proprieties have been disregarded 
by the President, the Faculty has formally expressed and 
recorded its disapproval.”’ 


The Faculty heard the following statement by the President 
and ordered it transmitted to the Board of Directors: 

“Hirst of all, I wish to thank Dr. Armstrong for his courtesy 
in sending me a copy of this complaint prior to the Faculty 
meeting. I also wish to say that this proposed ‘disappro- 


84 


bation,’ though heard with regret, occasions no_ personal 
feeling on my part, and so far as I am concerned will not 
serve to alienate me from my colleagues for whom I have 
high esteem and affectionate regard. It has been stated re- 
peatedly by other members of the Faculty that our differ- 
ences are not personal but have to do with methods to be 
employed in this historic institution. According to a state- 
ment recently made by Dr. Craig, a Director, in the columns 
of The Presbyterian, the issue at Princeton has solely to do 
with the policy of the institution. Regarding this there have 
been such serious differences of opinion as provoke contention 
end eall for consideration by the Board of Directors. The 
matters alluded to in the complaint have already substan- 
tially been brought to the attention of that body. And an 
appeal or complaint has been made to the General Assembly 
which has replied by recognizing a condition of affairs here 
‘cibversive of Christian fellowship and jeopardizing the use- 
fulness of the Seminary,’ by appointing a committee of five 
‘to make a sympathetic study of conditions affecting the 
welfare of the Seminary,’ and by impleading ‘the whole 
Church to study and strive and pray for the things that 
make for mutual understanding and Christian fellowship.’ 
Dr. Thompson, the Chairman, has written regarding a con- 
venient time when a full hearing may be given by the com- 
mittee to all concerned here at Princeton, and has suggested 
the last week in November. Whatever disposition the 
Directors may make of this complaint, it will certainly be 
in order to present it to the Assembly’s committee along 
with any other information or considerations which the 
Faculty may wish to present through that body to the General 
Assembly. In view of the fact that affairs of the Seminary 
have been brought to the attention of the public in a humil- 
iating and distressing way during the past two years, occa- 
sioning serious questionings of mind and heart on the part of 
friends of Seminary everywhere, this being an institution of 
the Church, the time has come, as I have been already quoted 
as saying, to turn on the light, and let the Church know what 
the real situation in the Seminary is and to judge accordingly. 

“Meanwhile in view of the trust imposed upon us, I would 
urge that so far as possible we work in Christian fellowshir 
to make this year upon which we have entered one of rea! 
spiritual blessing and power for the sake of the large number 
of students committed to our spiritual oversight.” 

Faculty adjourned with prayer by Dr. Greene. 

Signed, Paul Martin, Secretary. 
* > kK *k * 


85 


Memorandum Regarding the Status of the Board of 
Trustees and Their Relation to the Board of 
Directors 


You recognize it is much easier to be “hysterical” than his- 
torical. We have made our plans to bring a statement of the 
record from 1870, and with your permission I will read a 
memorandum regarding the status of the Seminary Trustees 
and their relation to the Board of Directors. 

1. Extract from report of the Committee on Theological 
Seminaries presented to and adopted by the General Assembly 
in 1870. 

“Princeton Seminary is administered by two Boards, 
known as the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees. 
The former are elected by the General Assembly in annual 
classes. The latter, having control of the property, is a 
close corporation, filling its own vacancies. 

‘In like manner, the seminaries at Allegheny, Danville and 
Chicago have each two administrative Boards—a Board of 
Directors and a Board of Trustees. 

Lane and Union Seminaries have each but one Board—a 
Board of Trustees at Lane, a Board of Directors at Union 
by which the property is held and the general control of the 
Seminary is administered, certainly a simpler method, by 
which all differences of opinion are avoided, such as have 
arisen and are likely to arise in other seminaries between two 
separate Boards, one of trust and the other of direction.” 

2. Resolution adopted at a joint meeting of the Board of 
Trustees and the Board of Directors held on December 22, 
1870: 

“Resolved, That we understand it to be the meaning of the 
resolution of the last Assembly relative to this subject (vide 
Minutes, 1870, sec. 2, p. 66), all matters relating to the 
finances, fixing the salaries of the professors, the extent of 
endowment and the aid of students, shall be by the Board of 
Directors submitted to the Trustees for their approval, that 
the acts of the Board of Directors of the Princeton Theo- 
logical Seminary affecting the finances of the institution 
must receive the approval of the Board of Trustees as a 
condition of their validity and binding force, and that the 
two bodies adopt such measures to secure conference and 
co-operation in such matters as they may deem expedient.”’ 

3. Action of the Board of Trustees in connection with 
the disposition of the Gelston-Winthrop Legacy, December 
5, 1905: ) 

“Whereas in considering and acting upon the report of the 
Committee on Conference on the use and employment of 





86 


the Gelston-Winthrop Memorial Fund, the Boards of Di- 
rectors and Trustees at their meetings of October 10 and 
November 14, respectively, have arrived at conclusions 
differing in some respects, 

And Whereas it has been the wish of all the members of 
this Board that in the use of this great benefaction a method 
and result should be reached which would be both wise and 
satisfactory, and any difference between the Directors and 
Trustees as a thing greatly to be deprecated: 

Therefore, Resolved, that the Board of Directors and the 
Faculty be invited to a conference upon the subject matters 
of difference, in the hope that a better understanding and a 
harmonious determination may be attained. 

Resolved, That such conference be held in the Old Sem- 
inary Library, Princeton, on Tuesday, December 19th inst., 
at two o’clock in the afternoon. 

Resolved, That the Secretary do forthwith send to the 
Secretary of the Board of Directors and to the Clerk of the 
Faculty an invitation making known the time, place and 
purpose of the conference, and to each member of this Board 
a notice of like scope; and further to send to each member of 
the Board of Directors a brief note of the points of difference 
between the Boards as revealed by their official action.” 

4. An ordinance respecting a Committee on Conference, 
adopted by the Trustees, June 5, 1906. (See page 54 of the 
Charter and Plan.) 

5. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 12, 
1925, on account of the agitation going on in the Seminary, 
and the humiliating publicity being given to it, the Chairman 
of the Finance Committee inquired of the President of the 
Seminary as to what it was all about. The President of the 
Seminary referred to Dr. Laird, the Acting President of the 
Board of Directors. It was stated that a committee has 
been appointed by the Board of Directors and would report 
its finding in due season. No information regarding the 
nature of this committee’s report had been given to the 
Board of Trustees. 

6. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees, November 9, 
1925, the following resolution was adopted: 

‘“Tnasmuch as any action of the Board of Directors in the 
matter of the retirement of professors and the election of new 
professors involves the finances of the Seminary, which 
finances are the trust of this Board, the Board of Trustees 
respectfully requests the Board of Directors to take no 
action until conference of the two Boards shall have been had. 

And that this action be communicated to the Board of 
Directors at its meeting tomorrow. 


87 


Dr. Laird desired to go on record as voting against the 
adoption of the resolution.”’ 

7. The special committee appointed by the General 
Assembly in 1922 to visit theological seminaries, in its report 
at the meeting of the Assembly of 1923 presented the following 
recommendation which was adopted by the Assembly: 

“The Assembly presented with approval to the manage- 
ment of the Theological Seminaries the proposal to reorganize 
by a combination of the functions of Trustees and Directors 
in one body elected for a definite term of years.”’ 

At the meeting of the Board of Trustees held November 
12, 1923, Dr. McDowell called the attention of the Board to 
the action taken by the Assembly and it was voted to refer 
this matter to the Conference Committee of the Board of 
Trustees, to consider and confer with the Conference Com- 
mittee of the Board of Directors, report to be made later to 
the Board. 

At the meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 10, 
1924, Mr. Holden presented the following resolution: 


“Whereas the General Assembly has recommended that 
Seminaries related to the Assembly operating under dual 
Boards should unite those Boards, therefore, be it 


Resolved, That the President of this Board appoint a 
Committee of three, of which he shall be one, to meet a 
similar committee from the Board of Directors to consider 
the question of the union of the two Boards of this Seminary. 
We recommend, subject to the. approval of the Board of 
Directors, that the President of the Seminary be the Chair- 
man of such a joint Committee. 

The President appointed the following: Judge Hellstab 
and Mr. Holden as the other members of the Committee.” 

8. When the election of the Rev. John Gresham Machen, 
D.D., by the Directors, as Stuart Professor in Apologetics and 
Christian Ethics, was reported to the Trustees at their meeting 
on May 11, 1926, the following action was taken: 

“The Rev. John Gresham Machen, D.D., was elected 
Stuart Professor in Apologetics and Christian Ethics; the 
salary was fixed at $5,400, plus the equivalent of a residence. 

After much discussion, this recommendation was carried 
by a vote of eight to five, the President of the Board requesting 
that his vote be against the recommendation, making the 
final vote eight to six. 

It was voted that in communicating this action to the 
Board of Directors, the number of votes in the affirmative 
and the number in the negative be included in the report.” 


88 


Dr. McDowell: These are taken from, the Minutes of the 
Board of Trustees. This is simply a record of items in the 
Minutes, having direct bearing on the relation of these two 
Boards. It is quite evident from the beginning that there 
was the possibility of misunderstanding. That possibility 
from time to time was met by the appointment of committees 
in conference. They seemed to be able to find their way 
through the difficulties. It was quite apparent that by 1906, 
something more definite and more effective should be pro- 


vided. 
* * * * ok 


Verbal Statement by the Rev. John Dixon, D.D., a 
Member of the Board of Trustees 


Might I preface what I may say by assuring your Com- 
mittee, if you need any assurance, that while there are 
differences of opinion as to rights and responsibilities and 
duties and methods, and the discharge of our duties as 
Trustees, we are all of one mind that we desire harmony, 
co-operation, and our fervent hope and prayer are that your 
Committee, when you have heard all the parties concerned, 
will be guided in the finding of a way out, which will be 
satisfactory to all the interests involved. 

Now, Mr. Moderator, the difficulties of the Board of 
Trustees may be expressed as both chronic and acute, and 
these are closely related to each other. A brief .review, if 
you will permit me, may illuminate the situation. Up to 
1870, the time of the reunion of the Old and New Schools, 
the General Assembly exercised the power of electing pro- 
fessors, deciding upon their salaries, and making all appro- 
priations for the current expenses of the seminary. As there 
was no provision in the charter of the Board of ‘Trustees 
giving to the Assembly, or to anyone else, authority to dis- 
pose of the money committed to the Board, the Board of 
Trustees framed an ordinance or a by-law, in which they ex- 
pressed themselves as willing and ready to make such ap- 
propriations as should be certified to them by the Stated 
Clerk of the General Assembly, as having been voted by the 
General Assembly. All went along very well until the time 
of the reunion, when, Mr. Moderator, you will recall, that 
one of the most serious difficulties in the way of reunion, was 
the theological seminary. Not all the seminaries were willing 
to accept of the Princeton plan to allow the Assembly to 
elect professors. Finally the famous veto power was devised 
and the problem was solved. That made it necessary for the 
Assembly to divest itself of the power or duty which it had 


89 


hitherto exercised in the election of professors, and imposed 
that upon the Board of Directors. 


The Board of Directors took it up, and they went further’ 
than the Assembly intended, further than the Assembly had 
the power to do, and the Board of Directors practically con- 
stituted themselves as the one power to vote appropriations, 
as well as to elect professors. The Board of Trustees were 
unable to submit to such a constriction of duties as being in 
direct conflict with the charter of the Board of Trustees. A 
conference was held, and has been referred to by the Sec- 
retary of this Board. The Board of Directors and the Board 
of ‘Trustees agreed upon two things. First, that every act of the 
Board of Directors involving the expenditure of money, 
should be referred to the Trustees for their approval, and of 
course for their disapproval, if they found they had to, other- 
wise the action of the Directors was not valid or binding. 
The second thing was, that in all financial questions, that 
there should be a conference between the two Boards before 
final action was taken in order that there should be harmony 
Very well. Things went along more or less smoothly until 
the death of Mrs. Winthrop made the seminary the heir, the 
residuary legatee of her estate, bringing a million and a half 
of money. ‘Thirty-five years is time enough for a generation 
to grow up that does not know Joseph. ‘lhe Directors were 
either ignorant of the 1870 agreement or they ignored it. 
I am not careful to affirm which. The result was that the 
Directors, the faculty joining with them, undertook to 
assume the distribution of this million and a half without 
any reference to the Board of Trustees. They were not in it. 
It was amusing, but it was serious, and the Trustees said 
to the Directors, “No, gentlemen. You cannot do that.” 
Conferences were held, with the result that the Winthrop 
money was so divided as to meet with the assent, if not the 
approval of Directors, Faculty, and ‘Trustees. But the 
Trustees realized that the agreement entered into between 
the Directors and the Trustees was not sufficient to procure 
harmony. Something more must be done. 


Therefore, the Board of Trustees devised two things to 
make harmony and co-operation secure. One was the ap- 
pointing of a standing committee on conference, of three 
members of the Board of Trustees, three members of the 
Board of Directors, and three members of the faculty. That 
has proved a practical failure. That committee is called 
together so very seldom, and not at all in the recent emergen- 
cies, that it has been a disappointment. ‘The other plan 
devised by the Trustees was to fill vacancies as they might 


90 


occur, to a limited extent, by electing Directors as Trustees. 
That was done with the hope that the two bodies, interlocking, 
being in a position to be immediately and fully informed of 
each others doings, would so work together as Christian 
gentlemen, that only good would result. I am sorry to say 
that that also has proved a failure. The last of the director- 
trustees is Dr. Laird. You never would have heard of these 
chronic difficulties, if it had not been for an acute situation. 
The Trustees would have borne them and said nothing about 
them, but an acute situation arose three years ago. 

It was becoming manifest that there was a division in the 
faculty. One of the professors had been demoted from being 
student adviser. There were serious administration difficul- 
ties. The whole town of Princeton, and the constituency far 
out into the Church, were being scandalized by the things 
said and done here. The professors, the majority of them, 
entered into a compact, more or less formally, to defeat one of 
their number when he was a candidate for the moderatorship 
of the General Assembly. JI will not enter into the details of 
that. It hurt to find that brethren who ought to be the most 
conspicuous examples of Christian fellowship, thus divided. 
Now after that, at a meeting of the Trustees Just a year ago, 
it became known that the Board of Directors was to meet 
the following day for the purpose of electing a professor, and 
it was understood that they would elect Dr. Macartney. 
The trustees realized, or thought they realized, that the 
election of Dr. Macartney would intensify and perpetuate 
the division in the faculty. What ought the Trustees to do? 
A resolution was adopted asking the Directors, first to confer 
before they completed the election. Did the Directors do it? 
There was a courteous request from another Board of the 
Seminary. Did the Directors recall the standing committee 
on conference? Did the Directors remember the compact of 
1870 between the Directors and the Trustees? No. Dr. 
Macartney was elected, and from that hour to this the 
Trustees have not heard from the Directors as to that reso- 
lution asking for a conference. 

Now at the May meeting of the Board of Trustees, it was 
learned that upon the evening of the May meeting of the 
Directors, that Dr. Macartney had declined the professorship, 
and that Dr. Machen had been elected. Worse and more 
of it, in the judgment of the Trustees. What were we to do? 
Not in the history of the Board of Trustees had there been a 
dissenting vote on the election of any man in the seminary. 

The Trustees were confronted with a responsibility which 
seemed to them to be very serious. Are we mere clerks of 





91 


the Board of Directors, paying tellers, to honor the check or 
draft made upon us? Or did those who have entrusted the 
Trustees with money for the seminary believe that the 
Trustees will not only handle the funds wisely, but that they 
will have due regard to the very best use of that money? 
You may be aware that money has come to the seminary 
from different persons. There are different trusts from the 
years that are gone, expressing that the money must be used 
for the teaching of certain doctrines as described and held. 
The trustees are the legal responsible parties for the handling 
of that money. There is no probability that there will arise 
a situation in the seminary where the Trustees will have to 
step in and say to the Directors, ‘‘Not a dollar can we pay 
you, because the teaching is not in harmony with the con- 
ditions laid down in the trusts reposed in us.’”’ We do not 
forget that such a thing has occurred in the history, not of 
our church, but of the congregational body in New England. 
Andover is an example, where after the Unitarian division, 
the strong orthodox congregationalists founded Andover, and 
bound it, as they thought for all time to the teaching and 
propagation of the truth of the Gospel. It has all gone. 
And the Trustees are confronted always with the possibility 
that circumstances may so change that they will be called 
upon to take the most serious acts of their trusteeship. 


Now Mr. Moderator, when Dr. Machen’s election was 
certified to the Board of Trustees by the Secretary of the 
Board of Directors, there was a difference of opinion as to 
our duty, the majority being in favor of approving of the 
election of Dr. Machen. These are the difficulties that have 
confronted us. No plan hitherto has prevented their arising, 
or having arisen, to prevent their recurrence. We look to 
you for the devising of an effective plan, or scheme, by which 
the interests of this seminary can be conserved; that if 
possible the propaganda of division in the church which is 
being headed and carried on by the faculty, or members of 
it, shall cease; that the attacks upon the missionary boards 
of the Church shall stop; that the discrimination against these 
Boards shall no longer be in effect, and that there shall be 
such fellowship, such co-operation, such walking together in 
the spirit of love, in all of the governing bodies of this sem- 
inary, as shall best promote its interests. Oh that you might 
be able to bring back this seminary to the happy days of 
Charles Hodge, whose teaching and spirit made the seminary 
honored and famous in all lands! 


* * ** * * 


92 


Verbal Statement by Mr. W. P. Stevenson, Treasurer 
of the Board of Trustees 


The Board of Trustees, almost to a man stands behind 
the President. The Board of Directors do not stand be- 
hind him, and they are jealous of anybody having any- 
thing to say with regard to the management of this institution 
except themselves, and just a few of themselves. One of 
the Directors told me when I was in Baltimore at the meet- 
ing of the General Assembly, that he was ashamed to be 
a member of the Board of Directors, that if it wasn’t for 
his feeling that he could probably do something to help 
the institution, he would resign in a minute. That is the 
way several of them feel. Dr. Duffield resigned the other day. 
He says he doesn’t want to belong to a Board like that or live 
in an atmosphere of strife such as they were always having. 
All these things put together will show you that there is 
trouble here. At the meeting of the Committee of the 
General Assembly, of which Dr. Luccock was chairman, Dr. 
Luccock asked the President of the Board of Directors 
directly: ‘Dr. Alexander, is there anything wrong at Prince- 
ton?”’ And Maitland Alexander stood up and said, “No, sir.” 
They don’t want anybody to know there is anything wrong, 
so long as things fall into their hands. I suppose that the 
reason that I was elected was that the gentlemen on the 
Board thought that I had sense enough to show that I was 
of some use to Princeton. I am deeply interested in Princeton 
Seminary, and if we overstepped the mark on some occasions 
by having a hand in the election of a professor, or something 
of that kind, it is not because we are going beyond our rights 
as members of the Board of Trustees, but it is because we can 
see that what we were opposed to having done on these 
special occasions, is not for the best interests of Princeton. 
When this matter of Dr. Macartney being elected came up, 
we wanted to have a conference with regard to the matter, 
in order that we might understand the thing fully about as 
to where the money should come from. I was anxious to 
make sure that nothing would be done until we should have 
this conference, provided for in our by-laws. I know Dr. 
Crane very well, and I wanted to see him with regard to the 
matter. He was chairman of the committee that happened 
to be in charge, and I told him that I or he should go to see 
Dr. Macartney and ask him if he would defer the acceptance 
of that office until after we would have conference of the two 
Boards, or that we would know exactly what we were doing. 
It was not more than fair to Dr. Macartney. The Board of 
‘Trustees were not in a humor to pay more salaries unless 


93. 


they have reason from the Board of Directors. He demurred, 
said he didn’t want to go to Philadelphia and say this to Dr. 
Macartney. I argued with him for a long time, and said, 
If you don’t go and see Dr. Macartney, I will go and tell 
him from my standpoint just how things stand. And after 
he found that I was determined not to place Dr. Macartney 
in an equivocal position, he agreed to go there and see Dr. 
Macartney, that he did not put in any answer at that time. 
What is very funny to me, and others, is that he didn’t put 
in any answer for a long time. 


+5 * *k *k *k 


Dr. Maitland Alexander: What I read now, has nothing 
of a personal character against Dr. Stevenson. My relations 
to him have been too long and too close to have any such 
idea as that in my mind. I think I had a great deal to do 
with his election as Moderator of the General Assembly, and 
with his being made President of this institution. As I read 
this, I would like to have that understood. 


Statement Representing the Entire Board of Directors 


“To the General Assembly’s Special Committee on Prince- 
ton Theological Seminary: 

The Board of Directors in response to the request of your 
Committee presents itself to you and holds itself at your 
disposal to give you such information as you may desire to 
assist you in your study of the conditions at Princeton 
Seminary. 

They present themselves as individuals to answer such 
questions as your Committee desire to put to them. Should 
there be any questions which the committee desire to ask of 
them as a Board, they will answer them to the best of their 
ability after conference, as no one man is able to represent 
the entire Board. The Board of Directors also reserves all 
its rights under the Charter and Plan of the Seminary and 
under the Company of 1870 and the decisions of the General 
Assembly as to the Assembly’s powers over the Seminary, 
should the questions involved ever come to an issue in the 
ecclesiastical civil courts. They nevertheless put themselves 
in the spirit of hearty co-operation with the effort which the 
committee are making to fulfil their commission. 


Statements Representing the Majority of the Board of 
Directors 


1. In the Matter of Dr. Machen. ‘The majority of the 
Board of Directors are‘of the same mind as when Dr. Machen 


94 


was transferred to the Chair of Apologetics. They feel that 
his scholarship, his reputation here and in other countries, 
his ability as a teacher, his inspiring work in his classes, make 
the words of Dr. Hutton true, “That any seminary might be 
proud to number him among its faculty.” We feel sure that 
no one questions Dr. Machen’s scholastic fitness for this 
Chair. The criticism of Dr. Machen by those who oppose 
him is based on his relations with those with whom he dis- 
agrees on matters of the seminary’s policies and doctrinal 
positions. The Board contends that any disputes which have 
arisen in connection with the policy and position of the 
seminary in which he has expressed himself that he is in 
agreement with the policy and position of the Directors. 

We believe that Dr. Machen has been sorely tried by 
charges that are false or misleading and we call attention to 
the fact that those with whom he differs in the church at 
large, especially in the scholarly world, emphasize his ex- 
cellent spirit in controversy, and as testimony to this we 
offer the following quotations from reviews of his books: 

“Dr. Machen is full of a sweet reasonableness which is 
his book’s greatest recommendation.” Dundee Advertiser, 
April 7, 1926. 

“Though Princeton is known for its hide-bound orthodoxy, 
Dr. Machen can not be charged with obscurantism or re- 
actionary sympathies, for he writes with a truly fine and 
catholic spirit.””, Western Mail, Cardiff, April 15, 1926. 

“Dr. Machen of the Princeton Theological Seminary, who 
is the real intellectual head of the persecutors, is far from 
ignorant and writes with an urbanity of manner far superior 
to that of the polemical controversialists opposed to him.” 
Hartford (Conn.) Times, December 26, 1925. 

‘Throughout its pages, the book would feign be persuasive 
rather than militant, and convincing rather than conflicting.” 
Living Age (Episcopal), March 20, 1926. 

“Under this title, the esteemed theologian, who is well- 
known in Germany as well as in his own country, has pub- 
lished a book, . . . distinguished by its thoroughness and a 
dignified freedom from personalities in the treatment of his 
opponents.” A. Julicher in Die Christliche Welt, August 
17, 1922. 

‘As a polemic writer, Professor Machen displays the self- 
control and good spirit of the scholar. One is conscious all 
the time of a devoted Christian character back of his words.” 
Record of Christian Work. 


‘His whole attitude in discussing the situation . . . carries 


ve it no vituperation.’”’ The Christian Herald, March 19, 


95 


“This able work is written in a rather irenic temper and 
wide purview of matters discussed at length.’ Homiletic 
Review, 1924. 

“He (the liberal) will not hear himself called vituperative 
names, he will not be offended by the gross superstition of the 
critic.”’ Prof. Henry J. Cadbury (Harvard), in the Congre- 
gationalist, September 138, 1924. 

The Board feel that his stimulating and helpful relations to 
the students of the Seminary are of tremendous value to 
them, as may be ascertained by your committee by impartial 
inquiry. They feel that. for the seminary not to avail itself 
of Dr. Machen’s scholarship in the Chair of Apologetics, 
instead of keeping him as the Assistant Professor of New 
Testament, which chair he now occupies, would be foolish 
in the extreme, hold the Seminary up to the ridicule of the 
scholarly world, and be a distinct loss in the tremendous 
battle now being waged against the Reformed Faith for 
which this Seminary stands. 

2. Inthe Matter of the President. The Board of Directors 
feel that many of the troubles of the Seminary are due to the 
administration of the President. Whatever anyone may say 
the fact remains that he does not receive the support of the 
majority in the faculty or the Board of Directors. As early 
as the first year of his administration, Dr. B. B. Warfield 
after the first few months declined to attend the faculty 
meetings and did not do so as long as he lived. Since then 
the breach between the President of the Seminary and the 
faculty and the Board of Directors has been growing wider 
and we believe the situation has reached an impasse which 
renders it difficult if not impossible to proceed. No civil 
corporation could continue to exist with such an attitude 
between its chief executive and its board of control. In an 
institution such as this leadership is very important, but when 
an executive is unable to gain the support of a large majority 
of its governing board, it is manifest that his usefulness is at 
an end. That the Board of Directors has tried to solve this 
problem is evidenced by the appointment of the Committee of 
Seven at the request of the President of the Seminary which 
spent months trying to adjust the matters in question but 
without avail. That the Board have not acted in this matter 
is due to their regard for Dr. Stevenson as a minister of the 
Gospel of Christ and because they hoped that he himself 
might come to see that his administration could have no 
hope of success with such a relationship as now exists between 
him and the majority of the faculty and the majority of the 
Board of Directors and that he would voluntarily resign. 


96 


All this is said with many regrets and the kindest feelings 
toward the President of the Seminary. » 

3. The Board of Directors feel that the Seminary in its 
teaching, witness and defense of the Reformed theology em- 
bodied in the Confession of Faith and the Assembly’s in- 
tepretation thereof is representing the views of a large part 
of the Presbyterian Church. That other seminaries with 
more liberal theological views are in the Church, makes it all 
the more necessary that Princeton should stand according to 
its plan as representing the conservative wing of the Church. 
And they believe that according to that plan under which 
they operate and according to the binding contract which 
they have with the Assembly, they cannot do otherwise. 

4. ‘The majority of the Board of Directors feel the humil- 
iation of such an investigation as this of a successful seminary 
whose work has been so blessed by God through all these 
years; whose teaching has been of the highest and most 
scholarly type; whose graduates on the- mission fields, at 
home and abroad, in professorships and charges, vindicate 
its work. Its Directorate has been chosen with great care 
and the men who serve it are men who have attained a 
measure of success in their fields. All the clerical members of 
the Board, with the exception of the president and Dr. War- 
field, are graduates of the Seminary. We have as the com- 
ponent parts of our Board: 2 Secretaries of the Church 
boards; 1 Editor; 1 Stated Clerk of General Assembly; 11 
pastors; 3 retired pastors; 2 presidents; 2 bankers; 2 surgeons; 
I business man; 3 lawyers. The Board has never been a 
unanimous Board, but it has been a thinking, planning and 
working Board. Its minority have a right to their own 
opinion just as one who is a member of the minority in 
another seminary board has a right to his. But unless we 
are to overthrow the genius of our Presbyterian form of 
government, the majority must control its policies. It has 
been said that the Board of Directors in electing its new 
members, packs it with men who are in the interests of the 
majority opinion of the Board. Since President Stevenson 
has held office, there have been eleven new directors elected, 
of this number seven have been suggested to the committee 
by the President. Correspondence indicating that is in the 
hands of the chairman of the Nominating Committee. 

_ Lhe Curriculum Committee, our most important committee, 
is made up of three members of the majority of the Board, 
and three, including the president, from the minority. ‘Twelve 


memberships in the Standing and Special Committees are 
held by members of the minority. 


oF 


All we ask in the investigation before you is impartiality, 
justice and a sympathetic treatment, free from extraneous in- 
fluences and apart from the clamor of those who can not 
possibly have the knowledge of the situation which the 
Board of Directors have and which we trust you will come to 
have. ; 

Submitted on behalf of a majority of seventeen of the 
Board of Directors to be presented to the Assembly’s Com- 
mittee on Princeton Theological Seminary. 


Maitland Alexander, 


President. 
* kK * * * 


Verbal Statement of Dr. John M. T. Finney, a Member 
of the Board of Directors 


I am one of the minority. I should have to dissent from 
a large part of the statement which you have heard read 
by the President of the Board. With the first page of that, 
it was stated quite correctly, was passed unanimously. 
I should like to submit as clarifying the situation, a copy 
of the minutes of the last meeting of the Board, Page 16, 
on which I should like to direct special attention of this 
Committee to what is stated as the official position of this 
Board with regard to the authority of the Assembly over 
this seminary, and with regard to their opinion as to this 
committee and its rights. With regard to Dr. Machen, the 
first section of this report, I can only say I have not the 
slightest word of dissent from anything that has been said in 
regard to his scholarship, and I am not in a position to judge, 
but I am perfectly willing to accept the opinions of those 
that have been read in your hearing. I simply want to say 
that that is one side of this controversy. His scholarship is not 
in question, but as a teacher, he is compelled to live in this 
seminary, and to work with other professors in this seminary. 
I want to call attention to the fact that Paul and Barnabas 
could not work and live together, and that so far as I know, 
there has never been a charge against the orthodoxy of either. 

With regard to the treatment of the minority in this Board 
by the majority. With all due respect to the good intentions 
of my friend, the president, I wish to register an emphatic 
protest and dissent from the statement that the minority 
have received due consideration, either on the matter of the 
appointment of committees, or in the matter of the considera- 
tion of various actions in discussion as they have come up. 
I refer to the discourtesy—and I cannot use any other term 
—which has been shown by the presiding officer to the presi- 


98 


dent of the institution, over the protest of the minority in 
not allowing him on a technicality to rise and speak on a 
matter of personal privilege. Take the matter of representa- 
tion on committees. Take the nominating committee. 
There isn’t a single appointive representative of the minority 
on that committee. I called the attention of the president 
of the Board to that by letter, that it must have been an 
omission. I received a reply saying that he declined to 
recognize any division in the Board. That was a surprise to 
him. That is sufficient, I think. 

The minority feel that they have not really received due 
consideration. And I would like the Committee to ask this 
question: Has Dr. Stevenson been allowed the freedom in 
the exercise of his prescribed functions by the faculty? 

It might be a question as to why complaint has not been 
made to the majority before. I wrote this letter to Dr. 
Alexander. It is the only time in my recollection where the 
question has ever been raised, and I refer to this now for 
fear. I was accused on one occasion by a member of the 
majority of being a poor loser—I trust that that charge will 
not be brought against me again. The only reason I am 
speaking of this question now, is in order simply to supply 
information as far as possible to the Committee. 

Dr. Thompson: Who are the minority? 

A. Dr. Stevenson, Dr. George Alexander, Dr. Mudge, 
Dr. Radcliffe, Dr. Finney. | 


K ok > * + 





Verbal Statement of Dr. George Alexander, a Member 
of the Board of Directors | 


I have been 42 years a member of the Board. In recent 
years I have been a very quite and inconsequential member, 
because I recognized the right of the majority to control, 
and I was not in the majority. I think, however, if your 
committee is looking for the origin of the trouble, it will not 
find it in this Board. You have probably already sensed the 
fact that there is a sense of kindliness here in spite of di- 
vergence of view. ‘The origin of the trouble is outside of 
this Board, and has been imported into it. I think you will 
find that the trouble originated in the faculty, and that 
the cleavage in the faculty was in general terms along this 
line: on one side, the men of the cloister, and on the other 
side the men of the open road; on the one side, the men 
who are chiefly concerned about facts and deductions and 
conclusions, and on the other, men who are in touch with 
human needs and deeply impressed with the importance of 


Oo 


carrying to them a gospel of reconciliation, and helping men 
into the right life. But these divergences arise in other 
faculties. I think both types of men are desirable in the 
faculty of the theological seminary, that they ought to 
supplement one another. I think the trouble has been ex- 
aggerated by the atmosphere of unrest in the Church, but 
the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust abroad, and then 
possibly ecclesiastical politics has had some place; and then 
the personal equation has seemed to me to be a pretty large 
one. It is because of this difficulty in the faculty that this 
Board has been so seriously divided. They endeavored to 
compose the difficulties in the faculty through this com- 
mittee, but the result was to bring disorder into the Board. 
As to Dr. Stevenson, I am not at all in accord. 


I think that with the handicaps he has had, his adminis- 
tration has been successful. It is a marvel that the insti- 
tution has kept advancing in spite of these disturbances and 
handicaps. I am not in accord with the view that he ought 
to be called upon to resign. If he should be called upon to 
resign, I think that there will be no other course for those of 
us who are in the minority to take, but to quietly give our 
places to others. That is my view. I ought to be discharged 
after 42 years anyway. I have never been shown any dis- 
courtesy because I was a member of the minority. It has 
not marred my friendship with the majority. I have grieved 
over the humiliating position in which the president has been 
placed more than once, but the situation is as it is, and if 
the president goes, I think the rest of us ought to go, and that 
the majority opinion ought to be expressed by a united 
board. 


k * *f 5 k 


Verbal Statement of Dr. Wallace Radcliffe, a Member 
of the Board of Directors 


I am very positively with the minority on the questions 
that are raised at this time. I sympathize in the first place 
with the line that has been presented by Dr. Finney. It 
is undoubtedly true that there are coteries within the Board, 
and that one is compelled to feel his place, so much so, that 
I have on two or three occasions written my resignation 
as a member of this Board. I am also living with one who 
had a good deal of advice to give me, and on her advice 
I threw it into the waste basket. At the same time I have 
been a member of this Board for twenty-five years, and 
in recent years I have felt increasingly just that discomfort 
we are now faced with. I don’t like to say the word, but 


100 


I have recognized what I interpret as a method of political 
working, with which I do not sympathize. I have heard 
a good deal, one way or another, that personally I do not 
represent what is commonly spoken of as the Princeton 
spirit, and that I resent, because if there is any place on 
this earth that I love, it is Princeton. I owe more to Princeton 
and Princeton men, to dear Dr. Casper Hodge, than any 
other one man. I came to Princeton and for the first time 
from him, I learned to study my Bible, and if there has come 
to me vigor and spiritual enthusiasm, and a measure of 
success, I owe it very largely to him, in his quiet, modest, 
but such efficient teachings in the class rooms. I haven’t 
the Princeton spirit if it means kow-towing at the name of 
Alexander, and vote as people tell me to. But if the Princeton 
spirit is an efficient and earnest devotion to the teachings 
which are taught at Princeton, and have always been taught 
at Princeton; if the Princeton spirit is enthusiasm for the 
system of theology as given in the Confession of Faith, and 
agreeable to the Word of God, I have lived my life in the 
power and comfort of the Princeton spirit. 


I want to endorse everything said about Dr. Machen. [I 
have a great admiration for his work, and I am proud of him, 
and I would like to see him kept in his chair in Princeton 
Seminary. He is a superb teacher, as well as a splendid 
scholar. But we have here been presented with other ele- 
ments, that so far as I am concerned, have directed my 
activity and my vote. What I resent is just that, because 
of what we may call coteries arising from the conditions that 
are in the Church and the seminary, and has made activity 
and even fraternity uncomfortable and even embarrassing. 
We were confronted in the Board of Directors with a vacant 
chair of Apologetics. I came to the meeting of the Board, 
and I thought, well now, something will be said. It had been 
presented to one member of the Board, and there was a 
report that he would not accept, but I heard nothing of it 
in a distinct way. I wondered what would come up. We 
met at length. What about the chair of Apologetics. Nothing 
to say. Nothing doing in one direction or another. Well, I 
could get no information. We came into the Board, and in 
the course of order, the question was called for, and to my 
great surprise, Dr. Machen was elected. I hadn’t heard a 
word about it. That isn’t the way of doing things, brethren. 
We are brethren. We are supposed to have confidence in 
each other. Why should it be hidden from me when I should 
come to one and another and ask about it? I purposely 
appealed to three or four, but nothing was said. Certainly 


101 


the thing was cooked up, was arranged suddenly and thrown 
on the Board. Let me take that back. There was the im- 
pression made upon me that there was a quiet arrangement 
on the part of a few to put that name through. I don’t like 
that I should be compelled suddenly to decide, and especially 
because of Dr. Machen’s position before the Church in many 
other ways, and because I thought ‘it an unwise and im- 
politic thing to act concerning him. I give that as a sug- 
gestion of my own feelings and my own experience. I don’t 
think I have been on any important committee, and have 
had nothing to do but vote. 

I want to say a word or two about the recommendation 
concerning Dr. Stevenson. I have no doubt Dr. Stevenson 
is not above criticism. But the history of the seminary under 
his administration has been a great history. One of increase 
of students, and of large influence for the seminary, and on 
his part evidently, a profound ambition to do a sacred and 
blessed work for the Church. I think he made some mis- 
takes that I would be free to talk about. Anybody would 
make mistakes. In the whole trend of the work, I confess 
that there has been some success, and more success than I 
anticipated when I voted for him for president. In one great 
respect his administration is in great contrast with that 
which preceded him, and has been a very great benediction 
to the seminary. I think it is fair to say that the best thing - 
the seminary has had has been a pastoral oversight that it 
never had before. The president’s house has been a fountain 
of blessing to those boys. I love Mrs. Stevenson for the 
beautiful, gracious and Christian work she has done. One 
of the needed things here is to have the social relation, and 
to come in contact personally with the president and the 
professors. ‘There are too many bachellors among our pro- 
fessors. That is a different thing that President Stevenson’s 
administration has brought to Princeton Theological Seminary. 
It would be a distinct loss. It would be a disaster if those 
boys do not have what they have been having in love and 
gracious service and prayerful sympathy in the house of the 
president of the seminary. 

We do need a clear, a distinct and detailed account of the 
functions of the president, and that is a classification of a 
great deal of the trouble. We need one governing Board. 
I think if we are going to ask for the resignation of President 
Stevenson, the very necessary part of that action would be 
the resignation also of Dr. Machen. If one goes, both ought 
to go, or peace wil] not remain. 

oe | *K * * * 


102 


Letter of Rev. Paul Martin, Secretary of the Faculty 
Princeton, N. J., 
December 28, 1926. 
Pres. W. O. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., 
Columbus, O. 
Dear Dr. ‘Thompson: Bier. 

The Seminary’s troubles seem to have their origin in (1) 
infelicities in its organization; (2) historical development 
arising out of these infelicities; (3) the historical development 
of these infelicities has reached a crisis in the conflict of 
personalities embodying and emphasizing the historic di- 
vergencies. 

I. Infelicities of Organization 

First, conflict or conflicting views of the relation of Trustees 
and Directors. These are two governing bodies with con- 
flicting or insufficiently defined powers relative to one another 
and the General Assembly. According to the New Jersey 
Charter of the Board of Trustees, this Board is the corpora- 
tion, appearing to be the governing body of the property 
held by it for the General Assembly. Charter and Plan, 
page 5, see. 5: “It is authorized to do everything needful for 
the support and due government of said corporation”; and 
again, page 37, sec. 2, ‘‘All matters relating to finance, fixing 
the salaries of Professors, the extent of endowment and aid 
of students, shall be, by the Board of Directors, submitted to 
the Trustees of the Seminary for their approval.’’ Under the 
Plan, p. 44, this is a self-electing body with no provision of 
veto by the General Assembly, with a proviso that the 
General Assembly may, at their annual meetings, change 
one-third of the Board of Trustees in such a manner as to 
the said General Assembly shall seem proper. Page 5, sec. 6. 
On the other hand, the Board of Directors are by the Plan 
given power to elect and remove Professors (subject to the 
veto of the General Assembly), fix salaries, determine courses, 
watch over the conduct of students, redress grievances, have 
charge of examinations of students, exercise control of all 
funds. ‘The Board elects its own members, subject to the 
veto of the General Assembly. 

The conflicting views may be described as between two 
theories of control of educational institutions. The Trustees 
of the Seminary by the Charter have the power of the purse, 
and like the Trustees of American educational institutions 
generally, they are the final responsible head of the institu- 
tion. According to the Plan, the plan of government seems 
to be analogous to that of a Presbyterian church, subject to 
the General Assembly as the individual church is to the 


103 


Presbytery; the Directors corresponding to the Session, the 
Faculty to the pastor, the Seminary Trustees to the church 
trustees. ‘That is, trustees in each case are a holding cor- 
poration, to provide and administer property and funds for 
the purposes of the dominant session or Board of Directors. 
Historically, the Trustees themselves have inclined to the 
first conception, and the Directors to the latter. That such 
conflict has and does exist is evidenced by the following 
illustrations: 

(1) The Trustees administer all property, independent of 
the Directors, spend what seems to them good on main- 
tenance and improvement of property and on salaries of 
Treasurer and Superintendent of Grounds and Buildings and 
his staff. The library and books being things, the Trustees 
control them, choose and determine the pay of the Librarian 
and assistants and through him select the books. ‘To be 
sure the Trustees invite certain members of the Faculty to 
serve as a Committee to act with the Librarian in the selection 
of books, but they have no authority. The result is that at 
present no one can teach or make addresses to students who 
does not agree theologically with the “majority” of the 
Faculty, but they have provided for them in the library 
books of every possible school of theological and philosoph- 
ical belief. (And curiously enough no one objects.) 

(2) About 1900 an effort was made to bridge the gulf 
between the Directors and Trustees by appointing the same 
men to the Boards. This has not worked out and the effort 
has been abandoned. 

(3) In 1910 the Trustees, without consultation with the. 
Directors and Faculty (and apparently without it occurring 
to them that they should) spent ten thousand dollars on 
remaking the unused refectory building into a gymnasium 
and employed for it a student instructor in physical training. 
This incident aroused the Hon. Wiliam M. Lanning, an 
eminent lawyer, who was both a ‘Trustee and a Director, to 
make a careful study of the powers of the two Boards, and 
write a legal opinion on the subject. His death occurred 
shortly after; the Boards could not agree on the subject of 
the paper and it still remains unacted upon. 

(4) Some ten years ago the two Boards and Faculty each 
appointed three members to form a Conference Committee 
(without powers). It has seldom met and has accomplished 
little. 

(5) Dr. Machen’s election to the Chair of Apologetics 
raised debate in the Board of Trustees on their right of 
disapproval. 


104 


II. Conflict or Conflicting Views as to the Relations of 
the Directors and the General Assembly 


The relative powers of these two bodies seem to be care- 
fully defined in the Charter and Plan. Nevertheless there is 
divergence. 

Does Article 1, Section 1, “As this institution derives its 
origin from the General Assembly, that body to be considered 
its patron and the fountain of its power”’ still hold; or, is the 
relation determined by the Compact of 1870, and did the 
Assembly by that Compact lessen its control as the ‘“ma- 
jority,’ I understand, are intending to claim? 


IV. Conflicting Views as to the Emphasis to be Given 
to Several Elements in the Curriculum 


The Charter and Plan, pp. 15-18, makes it clear that the 
Seminary is a training school for the ministry. No other 
conception of its purpose seems to have appeared until in 
the late nineties, when the more scholastic Faculty, of which 
mention has been made, came into existence; nor was there 
acknowledged departure from this definition then. See 
printed report of the Faculty to the Board of Directors on 
the Curriculum, dated April 29, 1903, ‘“‘The Faculty bearing 
in mind that the fundamental function of the Seminary is to 
serve as an efficient training school for the ministry of the 
Presbyterian Church,” ete. There grew up, as a matter of 
fact, an exaltation of the scholastic as over against the 
practical. The report above mentioned calls attention to 
there being in the Plan originally five disciplines: ‘‘Apolo- 
getics, Exegetics, Historics, Systematics and Practics,”’ “‘to 
which equal time and attention must be devoted,” has been 
expanded to eight ‘“‘to which about equal time and attention 
must be devoted.” These are Hebrew Philology, Apolo- 
getics, Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, New Testa- 
ment Literature and Exegesis, Biblical Theology, Ecclesi- 
astical History, Systematic Theology and Practical The- 
ology.” Thus, Practical Theology had fallen from being one 
among five equal to one among eight. At this time also a 
graduate year had been developed, looking to graduate 
courses in various departments of theology. 

About 1903 the realization of the increasing ignorance of 
the Bible on the part of candidates for the ministry caused 
the General Assembly to advise the teaching of the English 
Bible in the Seminaries, and the Directors of the Seminary 
divided the Chair of Ecclesiastical, Homiletical and Practical 
Theology into two, namely of Homiletics and of Practical 
Theology which was to include English Bible, and Dr. 
Kirdman was urged to accept the latter chair. 


105 


The existing faculty was opposed to the introduction of 
English Bible into the curriculum (report of the Faculty on 
Curriculum, April 29, 1903, p. 4), and when Dr. Erdman 
asked for the curriculum hours in which to teach English 
Bible there came a clash. Later, Dr. Warfield undertook to 
put through a resolution that elective studies based on the 
English Bible should not be allowed as minors in the courses 
for the post-graduate B.D. degree. This resolution did not 
pass, perhaps because it was not possible to formulate the 
resolution so as to exclude only Dr. Erdman’s courses. How- 
ever, Dr. Warfield served notice upon the Registrar that Dr. 
Erdman’s elective courses would not receive his necessary 
approval as minors in the registration by candidates of 
B.D. courses in the Department of Systematic Theology, and 
maintained this ruling through the succeeding years. It 
can be said without fear of contradiction that disparagement 
of Dr. Erdman’s courses has been a state of mind of the 
“majority” of the Faculty through his whole ‘term as a 
Professor. This attitude has not been concealed from Dr. 
Erdman nor the student body. (Nevertheless Dr. Erdman’s 
elective classes have been the largest of any elective classes.) 
If this attitude to Dr. Erdman is borne in mind, the wider 
divergence between Dr. Erdman and the “majority” since 
1920 will be more comprehensible. 


V. Conflicting Views as to the Doctrinal Requirements 
of a Professorship in the Institution 


The professorial subscription at inauguration, Charter and 
Plan, page 25, would seem to make the requirements clear. 
The guarding against deviation from the terms of the ‘‘sub- 
scription” seems to be left to the conscience of the professor, 
or, that failing, to the investigation and action of the Board 
of Directors. Yet another standard of doctrinal qualifica- 
tions seem to exist. Dr. Davis was in 1920 (?) invited by the 
Philadelphian Society of the University to speak in Alexander 
Hall on the creation of man as related in Genesis. Mr. F. D. 
Jenkins, then in his first year of his instructorship in System- 
atic Theology, was studying in preparation for an elective 
course on the Doctrine of Man. I called his attention to 
the opportunity which Dr. Davis’ lecture afforded of hearing 
him on this theme. The next day I learned to my surprise 
that Mr. Jenkins had not attended, and pressing him for the 
reason why, he replied that Dr. Hodge had advised him not 
to go, because Dr. Davis was likely to say that which he did 
not agree with and it might prove more convenient for Mr. 
Jenkins to be able to say to the students who asked questions 


106 


on the subject that he had not heard Dr. Davis’ address. 
The address proved to be a very notably illuminating one to 
his University audience. I suggested to Dr. Allis, Editor 
for the Faculty of the Princeton Theological Review, that its 
publication in the Review be requested of Dr. Davis. He 
declined the suggestion because Dr. Davis’ views were not 
satisfactory to him. The junior Assistant Professor thus 
prevented the publication in the Seminary’s theological 
organ of an article of its Senior Professor. I know it to be 
true that Dr. Davis was troubled in his last years by the 
conviction that the students in the Seminary were being 
cautioned against his teaching. 
Very sincerely yours, 
(Signed) Paul Martin. 


P.S.—I am writing this personally, without collaboration, 
and it has not been read by anyone. 


Note.—Certain portions of this paper.have been omitted 
as not being pertinent to the matters in the report. 
Kk *K Fg oe sk 


Written Statement of Professor J. Gresham Machen 
at the Second Faculty Hearing 


January 5, 1926. 


Gentlemen: My hearing before the Committee on No- 
vember 24, 1926, was interrupted first by my yielding to 
Dr. Erdman and then by adjournment. I shall now, with 
your permission, endeavor to begin at the point where I 
left off. What I shall say, however, must be regarded as 
supplementary to the three documents which I have already 
placed in the hands both of the members of the committee and 
of the members of the Faculty. ‘These three documents are 
(1) the pamphlet entitled “Statement,” dated November 23, 
1926, and presented on that day, or possibly on the following 
day, to all the members of the Committee, to President 
Stevenson, Dr. Erdman and to the other members of the 
Faculty; (2) the pamphlet entitled ‘Documents,’ dated 
with the same date and sent to the same persons; and (3) 
the pamphlet entitled ‘Additional Statement,’ dated De- 
cember 18, 1926, and sent immediately by first class mail 
from New York to all the members of the Committee, to 
President Stevenson, Dr. Erdman and to all the other members 
of the Faculty. 

On December 26, 1926, I sent to the Chairman of the Com- 
mittee a letter recording a correction in the Record. I am 
assuming that that letter has been received and filed. 


107 


With regard to my own defense, I am still somewhat 
hampered by not having seen any precise formulation of the 
charges against me. Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman did, 
however, make certain allegations against me in the course 
of their remarks before the Committee at the two hearings 
on November 23d and November 24th; and with regard to 
these allegations or charges, as they appear in the Record, 
I desire to say a few words. [ shall follow for the most part 
the order of the charges as they appear in the Record, except 
that I think it will be convenient to leave to the end two 
matters which seem to me to involve the most far-reaching 
questions of principle. 


I. Answer to Detailed Charges Made by Dr. Stevenson 


1. The first specific charge appears in the Record, p. 49, 
par. 5, where Dr. Stevenson asserts (1) that I endeavored to 
secure a cancellation of the appointment of Dr. Davis to give 
temporary instruction in Systematic Theology, and (2) 
that I was “the one member of the Faculty, who, after full 
discussion at a meeting of the Faculty, declined to join in a 
request that Dr. Davis should accept the appointment of the 
Curriculum Committee, and in consequence of this there was 
an agitation here on the campus which brought Dr. Davis 
under suspicion, so much so that he labored under the dis- 
advantage, which he felt keenly, of having students attend 
his classes who had been warned not to accept his con- 
clusions.”’ 

With regard to this matter, I desire to say that although I 
did not regard Dr. Davis as well qualified to teach Systematic 
Theology, great as was my admiration for his scholarship in 
his own field, I deny having given expression to this opinion 
in any improper or unseemly manner. I can find no record - 
in the minutes of the Faculty of the request to Dr. Davis to 
which Dr. Stevenson alludes, and consequently I can find no 
record of any failure on my part to join in such a request. 
If, however, such a request had been made—the request, 
namely, to Dr. Davis that he accept the appointment—I 
doubt whether I could conscientiously have voted for it, 
because I thought, on the contrary, that he would have been 
wise to decline; but I do not see how my action in the Faculty 
could have been the ground for agitation on the campus, 
unless some officer or member of the Faculty violated the 
confidence of our body by divulging matters which should 
certainly be regarded as confidential. Dr. Stevenson has 
cited no proof of the allegations contained in this paragraph 
of the Record, and If should like, if the Committee permits 


108 


me to do so, to ask him to present such proof—proof, namely, 
in support of the allegations (1) that I endeavored to secure 
the cancellation of the appointment, (2) that there was 
agitation on the campus which brought Dr. Davis under 
suspicion, and (3) that students in Dr. Davis’ classes had 
been warned not to accept his teachings. 

2. The second group of charges appeared in the next para- 
eraph, on p. 49 of the Record—opposition to Dr. Erdman’s 
candidacy for the Moderatorship, the activities of a press 
bureau, and the issue of a circular by the minority in New 
Brunswick Presbytery. All of these have been dealt with in 
my “Statement” and the relevant documents have been re- 
printed in my pamphlet entitled ‘‘Documents.”’ 

3. The third charge concerns the appointment of Dr. 
Wilson as Student Adviser. This charge also has been dealt 
with in my “Statement” and “Additional Statement’’, and 
will be dealt with, if the Committee permits, in a Statement 
which Dr. Armstrong has prepared. The relevant documents 
are cited by Dr. Armstrong and in part reprinted in my 
pamphlet entitled ‘‘Documents.”’ 

4. The fourth charge (on pp. 49 and 50 of the Record) 
concerns my vote against a report of the Faculty’s Committee 
on visiting preachers and a remark that I am alleged to have 
made ‘‘in a subsequent declaration.” 

With regard to my vote, I desire to say that in my Judg- 
ment the Faculty has a full right to choose whom it most 
desires to invite to the pulpit of the Chapel (only six visiting 
preachers from outside Princeton being possible every year) 
and that no Committee which is appointed (not with power 
but to report to the Faculty) has a right to insist that its 
recommendations shall be adopted without amendment. It 
was no doubt unfortunate that the Faculty’s Committee did 
not at that time include even a single representative of the 
majority group in the Faculty—the majority group in the 
division which, as I explained in my first Statement, has 
been caused by the policy of the President—and the awkward- 
ness of this situation has now been removed by a new method 
of appointing committees. 


With regard to my alleged remark—namely the remark 
in which I am alleged to have said, with respect to Drs. 
Covert, Watson and Vance, that “‘they are not Christians’ — 
I desire to say three things. 


In the first place, I am not clear when and where this dec- 
laration (of which I have no memory) was alleged to have 
been made. Is it alleged to have been made before the 
Faculty or in some other place? 


109 


In the second place, if it was alleged to have been made in 
the Faculty, I must respectfully contend that if oral remarks 
in the Faculty were to be made the basis of charges against 
a member of the body, then either a stenographic record 
should have been made of everything said in the meeting or 
else steps should have been taken immediately after the 
meeting that the wording of what was said should be estab- 
‘lished when the memory of it was fresh. It is not right, I 
think, to make my remarks in a debate lying some years 
back the basis of charges against me unless opportunity was 
given me at the time to establish the exact wording of what 
I did say. 

In the third place, I have no memory whatever of having 
said, with respect to the three gentlemen mentioned: ‘‘They 
are not Christians.” It would have been very strange for me 
to have done so, since certainly such a remark is quite out of 
accord with my attitude toward them. Even with respect to 
those persons in the Church who have made utterances that 
seem to me most hostile to the Christian religion—for ex- 
ample, the nearly thirteen hundred signers of the Auburn 
Affirmation—I have tried to distinguish the question of the 
personal standing of the men before God from the character 
of their utterances. About the former question I cannot 
presume to speak. The Affirmation is certainly not Christian ; 
but whether the signers of 1t are Christians or not—that I 
cannot presume to say. Still less am I disposed to affirm 
that other persons in the Church, like the gentlemen whom 
Dr. Stevenson mentioned, are not Christians. 


5. Next (p. 50), Dr. Stevenson objects to the reorganiza- 
tion of Faculty Committees, and the withdrawal of the ap- 
pointing power of the President, for which I voted. With 
regard to this matter I am prepared to defend my vote as 
altogether wise and proper. It is always, no doubt, a difficult 
situation when the president of an institution opposes the 
majority both of the Faculty and of the Board of Directors— 
and that not merely on isolated or incidental questions, but 
repeatedly and with regard to matters of the greatest possible 
moment. But this situation is rendered not more unsatis- 
factory but less unsatisfactory by our change in the method 
of appointing committees. That change has resulted in the 
securing of really representative committees—committees 
where the majority and the minority of the Faculty are fairly 
represented. It should be observed that for many years the 
Faculty authorized the President to appoint committees; it 
therefore reposed in the President just that kind of confidence 
which the President: is now disposed to demand. Seldom, I 


110° 


think, was the President of an institution given a freer hand 
or more thoroughgoing co-operation than President Steven- 
son was given over a long period of years after his assumption 
of office. It was only after a very long continued and fair 
trial of the other method that the method to which Dr. 
Stevenson objects was finally adopted. I deny, moreover, 
that in adopting this method or in any other of its actions 
the Faculty has transcended the sphere committed to it by: 
the Constitution of the Seminary or encroached upon the 
sphere committed to the President. 

6. In the sixth place, Dr. Stevenson (pp. 50, 51) says: 
“But should the Faculty take itself seriously, and assume the 
functions of a board of censors, or a board of strategy for the 
whole Church in general and the Presbyterian Church in 
particular? This is just what has taken place in Princeton 
Seminary within the last three years under the active leader- 
ship of Dr. Machen.”’ 

With regard to these allegations, I desire to say, in the first 
place, that it seems to me quite absurd to say that the Faculty 
has stood in any sense under my leadership. Five members 
of the majority group in the Faculty were my teachers when 
I was a student at the Seminary; and the relationship of 
pupil to master, into which I then entered with them, has 
never been broken but has only been deepened with the 
passing years. Whatever I may be, I am certainly not a 
leader of the Faculty of Princeton Seminary, but a follower. 
Both my theological convictions and my attitude toward 
ecclesiastical questions have been derived from the great 
tradition of this institution, which was represented by Dr. 
B. B. Warfield and is now represented by my revered col- 
leagues, for whom my respect and admiration are now even 
greater than they ever have been before. 


With regard to the substance of Dr. Stevenson’s charge— 
that the Faculty of the Seminary has constituted itself a 
board of strategy for the Church in general or for the Presby- 
terian Church—I desire to record an emphatic denial. In- 
dividually the members of the majority group in the Faculty 
have taken their stand on ecclesiastical questions in accord- 
ance with the dictates of their conscience; and if they have 
ever influenced the Church it has been due to the respect to 
which their individual judgment has been thought to be 
entitled; but they have not acted in these matters in any 
collective way. It is, I submit, a very unfortunate thing that 
the President of this institution should bring, without even 
attempting to adduce proof, so baseless a charge against his 
colleagues. 





411 


I have already pointed out, in my initial “Statement,” 
p. 14, the error involved in representing me (as Dr. Stevenson 
does on p. 51) as an advocate of the so-called Philadelphia 
Overture of 1924, requiring creed subscription on the part 
of the members of the Boards. 

7. On p. 55 of the Record, Dr. Stevenson asserts that the 
Board of Foreign Missions and the Board of National Missions 
“have requested Dr. Machen to furnish facts and proofs 
(that is, of my assertions with regard to the Boards), and 
although an extended correspondence has been carried on, no 
facts or proofs have thus far been produced.’ This assertion 
is highly misleading: the request for proof came not at the 
beginning but at the end of the ‘‘extended correspondence”’ to 
which Dr. Stevenson alludes. I should be glad, if you desire, 
and if you think it proper for me to do so, to submit to you a 
copy of the entire correspondence. 


II. Supplementary Correction of Assertions by Dr. 
Erdman 


I come now to the charges of Dr. Erdman against me, as 
they appear in the Record. What I shall say is, of course, 
only supplementary to what I have already said in my two 
printed statements. 

At the hearing on November 24, 1926, Mr. Bradley, as a 
member of the Committde, suggested that as in a case in 
court it is customary for each side to place a copy of its brief 
in the hands of the other side, so here any statements which 
might be made should be sent to all the interested parties. 
I had already followed this course in connection with my two 
previous Statements; and I was scrupulous about following 
it in connection with my Statement of December 18th, which 
on that same day I sent by first class mail from New York 
to Dr. Erdman, as well as to every other member of the 
Faculty and to every member of the Committee. Later I 
heard from the Chairman of the Committee, to my very great 
regret, that the copy which I had sent to him was not in 
hand. I then, on December 31st, sent additional copies by 
registered mail, special delivery, to every member of the 
Committee and to Dr. Erdman. I had refrained from regis- 
tering the copies which I had sent previously, in order to 
avoid the delay to which registered mail is subject. It 
seemed desirable that the Statement should be in the hands 
of the members of the Committee in plenty of time prior to 
the meeting on December 27th. 


Here I am dealing only with what already appears in the 
Record. : 


112 


1. At the hearings on November 28rd and 24th, Dr. 
Erdman objected to my attitude toward the Plan of Union 
which was sent down to the Presbyteries in 1920. I have 
alluded to that matter in both my printed statements. Here 
I desire merely to deal briefly with three assertions of Dr. 
Erdman (see Record, pp. 62, 63.) , 

(1) Dr. Erdman stated that Dr. Machen ‘‘believes that 
union is anti-scriptural, atheistic, and other adjectives.”’ 
If the Committee permits, I desire now to ask Dr. Erdman 
to cite the place where I used the adjective “atheistic”? with 
regard to the Plan of Union. I am quite sure that I did not 
use it. 

(2) Dr. Erdman stated that the Preamble to the Plan of 
Organic Union said: ‘Inasmuch as we all believe in the 
Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, etc.” As a matter of 
fact, that was just what the Preamble carefully avoided 
saying. Far from saying that we all believed in the Nicene 
Creed, etc., it said: ‘‘Whereas we desire to share, as a com- 
mon. heritage, the faith of the Christian Church which has 
from time to time found expression in great historic state- 
ments” and thus gave adherence to the well known theory of 
modern agnosticism, that all that is constant in the Church 
is the Christian consciousness, which Christian conscious- 
ness finds a necessarily changing expression in every age in 
the Creeds. : 

(3) Dr. Erdman stated that we should come into the 
Union (if we adopted the Plan) on the basis of our own Con- 
fession of Faith. That statement is certainly not correct. 
We were to retain our Confession of Faith among certain 
purely denominational matters, but certainly it was relegated 
to the realm of the non-essential. The basis of union—con- 
taining the things thought essential to Christian fellowship— 
was found in a Preamble couched in the vague language dear 
to modern naturalism and not containing even a mention of 
the resurrection of our Lord. 

2. On pp. 63-65 of the Record, there are found various 
assertions about the Committees of the Faculty and about 
the League of Evangelical Students which have been corrected 
or will, if you permit, be corrected today by other members 
of the Faculty. 

3. In the third paragraph on p. 64, Dr. Erdman says: 
“It had been stated by Dr. Machen that the Seminary had 
had no real Adviser for some years.” With the permission 
of the Committee, I should like to ask Dr. Erdman either (1) 
to cite evidence or adduce witnesses in support of this asser- 
tion regarding what I said, or else (2) to state to the Committee 
whether he means to offer at this point his own personal 
testimony. | 





113 


III. Charges of Dr. Stevenson with Regard to Judging 
Colleagues in the Matter of Ecclesiastical Beliefs 
and with Regard to the League of Evangelical 
Students 


1. Onp. 51 of the Reeord, Dr. Stevenson asserts that the 
members of the majority group in the Faculty have been 
guilty of judging colleagues in the matter of ecclesiastical 
beliefs and attitudes. The majority of the Faculty, he in- 
timates, have made the ecclesiastical opinions of certain 
colleagues of theirs the basis of discrimination against them. 
This charge Dr. Stevenson has altogether failed to sub- 
stantiate. But in his own statement he has made himself 
guilty again and again of the very fault which, quite errone- 
ously, he charges against his colleagues. In his statement 
the following elements in my stand on ecclesiastical questions 
have been made the basis of attack upon me as a professor in 
Princeton Seminary: (1) I opposed the candidacy of Dr. 
Erdman for Moderator (Record p. 49, sixth paragraph), (2) 
I allowed my name to be used in the ecclesiastical campaign 
in connection with a certain press bureau (p.-49), (3) I joined 
in signing a circular issued by the minority of New Brunswick 
Presbytery, (4) I have made a diagnosis of conditions in the 
Presbyterian Church and have given it publicity (pp. 50, 51), 
(5) I maintain an attitude of opposition to General Assem- 
blies, the Assembly of 1924 excepted, and toward the Boards, 
agencies and enterprises of the Presbyterian Church (p. 50), 
(6) I hold that the condition of the Church prior to 1923 was 
deplorable, and that the change that came at that time was 
an answer to prayer and was marked by the presence and 
power of the Holy Spirit (pp. 52-55). 

I admit fully, and I insist upon, the substantial truth of 
these allegations. With the exception of the assertion under 
5, regarding my attitude toward the Boards and agencies 
and toward the General Assembly, which assertion requires 
qualification, Dr. Stevenson has, on the points which I have 
enumerated, correctly stated my attitude toward ecclesiastical 
questions. I confess it freely, gentlemen. I am. opposed to 
the obscuration of the great issue in the Church; I am op- 
posed to several actions of the General Assembly during the 
last few years; I am opposed to the report of the Commission 
of Fifteen. I cannot relinquish these opinions in order to 
obtain a professorship or for any other purpose. They are 
eonvictions which I hold according to the dictates of my 
conscience and in the presence of Almighty God. But that 
simply raises the large question at issue in connection with 
the confirmation of my election as professor in this Seminary. 


114 


Are the ecclesiastical opinions of professors to be made to 
conform to those of whatever party happens to be in power 
in the General Assembly in any given year? Such will be 
the case if Dr. Stevenson’s attack upon me because of my 
ecclesiastical opinions is successful and becomes a precedent. 
Or is liberty of conscience, within the limits of the Confession 
of Faith, still to be respected in the Presbyterian Church? 

2. On pp. 51-53, Dr. Stevenson criticises the League of 
Evangelical Students, of which I, with the majority of the 
members of the Faculty, am a member. The best refutation 
of this criticism will be found in an examination of the Con- 
stitution of the League and of the other documents that have 
been. cited or will be cited by Dr. Armstrong and have been 
partly reprinted in my pamphlet entitled “Documents.” 
Here I desire to comment barely upon one allegation of Dr. 
Stevenson—his assertion, namely, that it (the League) “‘es- 
tablishes a doctrinal test as the basis of good standing in the 
Seminary.” (Record, p. 52). I am really amazed that the 
President of this Institution should make so erroneous an 
assertion. ; 

The Constitution of the League recognizes two types of 
member organizations or chapters: (1) the entire student 
association of an institution, (2) a chapter within the student 
body of an institution, where the student body as a whole 
does not enter the League. 

The chapter of the League at Princeton Seminary is at 
present of the second type. Membership in the League is 
purely a matter of individual choice, and absolutely no undue 
pressure is exerted upon those who are not members to 
become members—no kind of persuasion, that is, which is 
not permissible in the case of any volunteer organization for 
Christian service. ‘Those who are not members are in just 
as ‘‘good standing in the Seminary” as those who are. 

On two occasions—in the spring of 1924 and in the autumn 
of 1926—a vote was taken to see whether the chapter of the 
League at Princeton should be of the other one of the two 
types—that is whether the Student Association as a whole 
would enter the League. On both oceasions there was a 
large majority in favor of entering the League; but entrance 
was not thereby effected, because the Constitution of the 
League requires a three-fourths vote and not merely a two- 
thirds vote or a majority. 

But suppose the three-fourths vote had been secured— 
suppose, therefore, that the Student Assoe@iation as such had 
entered the League—what would have been the result? 
Would any doctrinal test have been established for good 





115 


standing in the Seminary? Most emphatically such would 
not have been the case. No subscription whatever to the 
principles of the League on the part of all the individual 
members of the Student Association would have been re- 
quired; so far as the League is concerned, any number up to 
one-fourth of the membership of the Student Association 
might have been even thoroughgoing unbelievers or atheists; 
and their membership in the Student Association, and the 
membership of the Student Association as such in the League, 
would not at all have involved any requirement for them to 
subscribe to Christian beliefs. A more complete absence of 
any doctrinal test, so far as the League is concerned, could 
scarcely be imagined. Of course it is quite a different ques- 
tion whether our matriculation pledge is so broad as that; 
but that pledge is imposed by the Plan of the Seminary, and 
has nothing whatever to do with the League. 

But what is this doctrinal test which Dr. Stevenson seems 
to think so oppressive? It is found in Article III, Sections 
1 and 2, of the Constitution, which read as follows: 

“Section 1. Qualifications for membership in the League 
shall be faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and 
acceptance of the fundamental truths of the Christian Re- 
ligion, such as: the Trinity, the Virgin Birth of Christ, His 
Divine and Human Natures, His Substitutionary Atone- 
ment, His Resurrection from the Dead and His Coming 
again. 

Section 2. The above summary is not intended to be re- 
garded as a complete statement, nor as an authoritative 
definition of the limits of Christian fellowship, but simply 
as an indication of the class of persons whom the League 
welcomes as members.”’ 


Which one of these supposedly burdensome requirements, 
gentlemen, may be omitted as a basis not merely for the 
ministry but for any kind of evangelical Christian work? 
Do they not simply constitute the only really firm basis of 
all Christian life and Christian fellowship and Christian 
prayer? 

I have great sympathy, indeed, for students who enter 
Princeton Seminary with doubts and difficulties concerning 
the truth of the Christian religion. My sympathy with them 
is the greater—if you will pardon a personal testimony— 
because I was one of their number when I entered the in- 
stitution in 1902. I, too, was troubled with many doubts, and 
only the broadminded patience of the Faculty, especially of 
Dr. Patton and Dr. Armstrong, brought me through. But 
one thing at least never occurred to me in those difficult days 


116 


—it never occurred to me to try to impose my doubts upon 
my fellow-students, or to hinder the corporate witness of the 
Student Association or Princeton Seminary to the full truth- 
fulness of the Scriptures and to the Lord Jesus Christ as He 
is offered to us in the gospel. I was grateful for the broad- 
mindedness with which Princeton Seminary received me; but 
it never occurred to me to use that broadmindedness that 
I might oppose the thing for which the institution stands. 


I do not mean for one moment to say that all those who 
oppose the League of Evangelical Students do so for reasons 
such as those to which I have just alluded. And I am as far 
as possible from desiring to exert any pressure upon men who 
do not wish to enter into the League. But I do insist, also, 
upon the liberty of the men who have become members of 
this organization. Souls are perishing in the colleges of our 
country today—perishing for the Jack of Christian fellowship 
such as this League affords. God bless these students, I 
say, who are holding out a helping hand to their brethren who 
are in need! And I am bound to say that when it comes to 
saving souls and engaging in Christian fellowship I am not 
inclined to insist upon academic degrees. No one values 
more than I the scholarly standards of this institution—the 
maintenance of them is one of the two great principles for 
which we need in this day and generation constantly to 
contend. But when it comes to a united witness to the Lord 
Jesus Christ, I am bound to say that my sympathies are 
very broad. I am not, moreover, a premillennialist, and 
neither is any member of the majority group in this Faculty; 
but despite the strictures of Dr. Stevenson I am not ashamed 
to hold fellowship with men who hold the premillennia] view. 
We are living in a time of conflict; deadly forces are attacking 
the very roots of Christian faith within and without the 
Church. At such a time I can well understand the desire, 
on the part of the students who have formed the League, for 
fellowship with men who hold a common faith. 


At any rate, it would be a sad day for the Presbyterian 
Chureh when ecclesiastical obstacles should be placed in the 
way of such a voluntary organization for Christian service. 
The Roman Catholic Church does not engage in any such 
tyranny as that; but, as Macaulay pointed out, it knows how 
to use enthusiasm for its own purposes, instead of making 
enthusiasm an enemy. Still more, I think, should the mem- 
bers of the Presbyterian Church be free. 

Dr. Stevenson objects to the League because it brings our 
students into connection with ‘‘secession bodies,’’ with 
“small institutions and sects which are committed to separa- 


LIE 


tion and secession.’’ (p. 53.) I confess, gentlemen, that at 
no point is my disagreement with Dr. Stevenson more pro- 
found than here. His attitude at this point seems to me to 
be hostile to the very foundations of Christian liberty; and 
Christian liberty seems to me to be based upon the emanci- 
patory words of our Saviour Himself. ‘‘Forbid him not’ 
said our Lord, with regard to a secessionist of the early days, 
who was objected to because he did not follow with the com- 
pany of the other disciples; and so from that day to this He 
has had in His care those who follow the dictates of their 
conscience in the worship and service of Him. We Protestants 
are all secessionists; and if, in the interests of organizational 
conformity, we fail to honor liberty of conscience, our high 
heritage has been lost. When I think of the noble Christian 
people who are included in the “‘secession bodies’? to which 
Dr. Stevenson alludes, I feel grieved to the heart that such a 
word has been uttered by the President of Princeton Sem- 
inary. 
IV. The Real Issue at Princeton Seminary 


At the hearing on November 23, 1926, the Chairman laid 
before the members of the Faculty the questions: (1) what 
the real trouble at Princeton Seminary is, and (2) what 
remedy is to be proposed. Other members of the Faculty 
have dealt with these questions in one way or another. If 
the Committee does not think me presumptuous, I should 
like to say a word with regard to them. 

My answer can be put very briefly. The essence of it is 
that the real question at Princeton is doctrinal. It concerns 
the maintenance of the historic position of Princeton Sem- 
inary in the defense of the faith. The majority of the Board 
of Directors and the majority of the Faculty are in favor of 
a policy which I think will maintain that position; the Presi- 
dent is in favor of a policy which I think will break it down. 

‘That does not mean that I am passing any judgment upon 
President Stevenson’s own religious views. It is quite possible 
for a man who is himself in agreement with the historic 
Christian faith to be—if he is permitted to carry out an in- 
cautious policy unchecked—the instrument in breaking down 
the witness of an institution to that faith. He will be such 
an instrument if he assumes an uncritical, optimistic attitude 
with regard to the forces at work in the Church. So, in 
point of fact, the transformation in formerly evangelical 
institutions has usually come. It has seldom come through 
the sudden introduction of definite modernism. More often 
it has come, I think it will be found, with many protestations 
of conservatism and loyalty, and even with a sincere effort to 


118 


maintain conservatism and loyalty, through just such an 
inclusive policy as that which Dr. Stevenson enunciated at 
the last General Assembly and which has been his policy 
for a number of years. I am very far indeed from asserting 
that Dr. Stevenson is a Modernist; but I am convinced that 
if his policy prevails, Princeton Seminary will be in a very 
few years a Modernist institution. 

It is quite possible that you may think such fears ground- 
less. But even if you do so, you may still decide, with perfect 
consistency, to bring in no recommendation adverse to the 
Board of Directors. The question is not whether the policy 
of the Board of Directors is good or bad, but whether the 
Board has a right to maintain that policy. Must the in- 
stitution be made to conform to the changing temper of the 
General Assembly, or should its individuality be respected? 


I think that the latter answer is correct. An historical 
review, which has been presented by Dr. Hodge, shows that 
Princeton Seminary is clearly a seminary of the Old School. 
When the Old School and the New School were united in 
1870, the theological distinctiveness of the institutions that 
thus came together within the larger unity of the Church 
was clearly guaranteed. Thus even if the theological differ- 
ences now prevailing in the Church were merely differences 
within Calvinism, like those that separated the New and 
Old Schools, we should still have a full right to be distinctly 
an Old School seminary. But as a matter of fact—and it is 
a fact that deserves emphasis more than anything else—the 
theological differences that now prevail in the Church are of 
a vastly more serious nature; they involve, we think, not 
two varieties of Calvinism and not merely even the truth of 
evangelical Christianity, but the truth of the Christian 
religion as it is held in common by the Church of Rome, by 
the Greek Church and by all the branches of historic Protest- 
antism. At such a time of wide theological difference—wide 
even in the opinion of our opponents in the Church as well as 
in our own—have we not aright to our theological distinetive- 
ness? Call our position what you will; call it ultra-conserva- 
tism, Fundamentalist, reactionary, or use any other term; 
disagree with it as strongly as you please. But have we not a 
right to maintain it within the Presbyterian Church? That 
is the real question. . 

To answer that question in a way hostile to the individuality 
of the Seminary would certainly be a very serious step. Our 
Board of Directors is no unworthy or contemptible body of 
men, but has within its membership many of the most 
honored and successful ministers and elders in our Church. 





HED 


To advocate changes that would forcibly break down the 
authority of that Board—changes like a forced merger with 
the Board of Trustees or a rotary system of elections for 
membership in the Board—would be to say that all the fair 
words which have recently been uttered about liberty under 
the constitution of the Presbyterian Church are vain, that 
liberty in our Church is only for Modernists and not for 
Conservatives, and that an institution which maintains the 
Reformed Faith in its full historic sense is to be suppressed. 
I cannot think that you will take so radical a step. Whatever 
be your own attitude toward our theological and ecclesiastical 
views, I cannot help hoping that you will hold that our dis- 
tinctiveness is to be respected even when it is not shared, 
and that the internal affairs of Princeton Seminary are to 
be left, of course with retention of the Assembly’s veta power, 
to the orderly working in the Board of Directors and in the 
Faculty, of the principle of majority rule. 
Lh) tae ee 
Written Statement of Dr. Oswald T. Allis 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, Professor Armstrong 
stated to you at the first hearing of the Faculty by your 
Committee that the ‘“Memorandum” which he presented to 
you was concurred in for substance by the majority of his 
colleagues in the Faculty. Since I belong to his majority 
I shall not rehearse, nor do I deem it necessary to supplement, 
to any considerable extent the substance of that paper. I 
simply wish to state it as my personal conviction that the 
cause of the present “crisis” in Princeton Seminary is the 
fact that there is serious difference of opinion between mem- 
bers of the Faculty as to the attitude which loyalty to the 
Charter and Plan of the Seminary and fidelity to its historic 
position demand, that this Institution and members of its 
Faculty should take toward the great questions which are 
now agitating the Presbyterian Church. 

In a body such as the Faculty of Princeton Seminary, 
differences of opinion as to important issues are serious and 
must always be regarded as deplorable. But the majority of 
the Faculty feel that they are not responsible for the issue 
which has divided that body, but hold that they have been 
endeavoring to stand true to the solemn obligations which 
they assumed when they were entrusted by the Directors of 
the Seminary with the responsibility of teaching in this In- 
stitution. Consequently a serious situation arises when a 
professor of this Institution, Dr. Erdman, in speaking before 
the highest court of our Church, the General Assembly, 
undertakes to oppose the confirmation of one of his col- 
leagues in a Chair to which after twenty years of faithful and 


120 


distinguished service he has been regularly elected by the 
Board of Directors. But this action ts especially reprehensible 
for two reasons. The first is that Dr. Erdman represented the 
debate over Dr. Machen’s confirmation as having to do with 
“a little question” (so the N. Y. Herald Tribune reported it; 
I think the word actually used was ‘‘trifle’’), despite the fact 


that the action which he advocated has no parallel since the — 


days of the Briggs case and no strict parallel even in it. 
Yet Dr. Erdman had used or allowed to be used, as the chief 
basis for the widely circulated charge that he had been “per- 
secuted,’’ his so-called ‘‘deposition’”’ from the position of 
“Student Adviser.” If a change in a Faculty appointment 
was such a big thing when he was the one concerned, Dr. 
Erdman should have been the first man in the Baltimore 
Assembly to recognize the seriousness of the matter at issue 
and he should have been the last man in that Assembly to 
represent it as “‘a little question”? whether his colleague, Dr. 
Machen, should be confirmed as a full professor in the In- 
stitution or said confirmation be delayed pending an in- 
vestigation. 

The second reason is that I am convinced that the principal 
objection to Dr. Machen is simply that he has been con- 
spicuously active and outspoken in his defense of that position, 
to which as I believe Princeton Seminary stands committed 
both by her constitution and by her historic interpretation 
of that constitution in more than a hundred years of service 
in the Presbyterian Church. Therefore, I hold that I should 
be untrue to myself and disloyal to a man whom I regard as 
one of the ablest advocates of that system of doctrine, to 
the exposition and defense of which Princeton Seminary is 
committed were I not to express to you my admiration for 
my colleague, Dr. Machen, as a man, as a Christian gentle- 
man, and as a theologian of rare ability, and my deep regret 
that what should have been a worthy reward of faithful and 
devoted service, has been made in his case the occasion for 
attack, not merely from without the circle of Princeton men, 
which in the present crisis would have been natural, but from 
within the circle of the Faculty itself. 


But serious as it undoubtedly is when members of a 
Faculty are not agreed as to matters of vital concern to the 
policy of the Institution which they serve, the seriousness of 
the situation is very greatly increased when the President of 
the Institution holds and uses the office which he occupies 
to maintain and advance, a policy which is seriously out of 
harmony with that conception of the policy of the Institution 
to which in the opinion of the majority of his faculty, the 


a ee 


121 


Institution is unalterably pledged. The President of the 
Institution is primarily only a member of the Faculty: 
primus inter pares. But he is the representative and ad- 
ministrative head of the institution. He alone of the Faculty 
is ex-officio a member of the Boards of Directors and Trustees; 
he is “the administrative agent of the Seminary in matters 
of order and discipline’; and he is “‘the representative of the 
Seminary before the Church.” ‘President of Princeton 
Seminary” is not an empty title. With hosts of Presbyterians 
and non-Presbyterians in this country and abroad, it desig- 
nates the official representative and spokesman of Princeton 
Seminary as an Institution which is a widely known and 
highly esteemed exponent and defender of historic Presby- 
terianism in the world today. The President of this Sem- 
inary should therefore be the ardent and enthusiastic ad- 
vocate of the things for which Princeton Seminary stands and 
to which it stands committed. But unfortunately the Presi- 
dent has made it increasingly clear that he does not share 
that conception of the ‘Princeton position’? to which the 
majority of his Faculty feel that they are solemnly obligated. 
I need not enlarge upon this point. In the paper presented 
by Dr. Armstrong, to which I have already referred, the 
President’s speech at Baltimore has been already mentioned 
and its implications pointed out. It is now, I believe, in- 
escapably plain that the President is determined to carry out 
his policies in the face of the open opposition of the majority 
of his Faculty, and furthermore and most important of all, 
that he is prepared to use every means in his power, especially 
those means which his position of leadership as the President 
of the Seminary has placed at his disposal, to undermine their 
influence and to change this Seminary from its position of 
strict adherence to the traditions of historic Presbyterianism 
to one in which all the shades of beliefs which are now tolerated 
within the Church, even though they be clearly out of harmony 
with its Standards, will be more or less tolerated even if not 
approved. This policy the majority of the Faculty fee] it 
their duty to resist and oppose. 


* * +f ok 6 


Written Statement of Professor William P. Armstrong 
at the Second Faculty Hearing 


I. Introduction 


In response to the Statement which was read by the 
President of the Seminary to the Committee at their meeting 
with the Faculty of November 23rd, I beg to submit for 
your consideration the following comments. 


122 


With the point of view of the President’s Statement I am 
unable to agree as I cannot approve the terms in which he 
has characterized the motives of myself and others in his 
references to the majority of the Faculty. I cannot admit 
that my actions, either in the Faculty or in the Presbytery, to 
which he alludes, justify the charge of “suspicion, distrust and 
dissension.’”’ These actions of course give evidence of a 
division in the Faculty, in which I acted with the majority, 
and of a division in the Presbytery, in which I acted with the 
minority; but for the charge of ‘“‘suspicion”*they give no 
adequate ground. 


II. The Presbytery of New Brunswick 


The reasons for the Statement which I signed, together with 
the other minority members of the Presbytery of New 
Brunswick (alluded to in T., p. 49)', are set forth in that 
document.? I did not favor the ecclesiastical policy of Pro- 
fessor Erdman. Therefore I could not support a resolution 
commending him for the Moderatorship. On the roll call 
I voted in the negative. The Presbytery itself showed re- 
spect for the rights of the minority by ordering that the 
record of the vote (48 to 89) should accompany the resolution 
when it was given publicity. When the resolution was 
circulated without this record, the rights of the minority 
were infringed. As this seemed to me unjust, I signed the 
Statement with the other members of the minority. 


Ill. The Reorganization of Faculty Committees 


The matter of the Faculty Adviser of the Students’ Asso- 
ciation and the matter of the Report of the Committee on 
Preachers were discussed in my Memorandum (T., pp. 
49-50; M., pp. 7-9 and 10-11). In speaking of the reor- 
ganization of Faculty Committees, the President states that 
the Faculty withdrew from him “all appointing power” and 
that this was ‘coupled with an encroachment upon the ad- 
ministrative functions of the President’? (T., p. 50). The 
first statement is true, the action being taken upon the 
unanimous recommendation of a Committee consisting of 
Dr. Greene, Professor Erdman and myself (M., p. 10). The 
President did not dissent from this action. If he felt that it 
was an encroachment upon his administrative functions, 
some statement to that effect should have been made at the 


‘References are either to the Transcript (T) of the Faculty Hearing ot November 
23 and 24, 1926, or to the Memorandum (M) which I submitted at that 
time on behalt of the Majority of the Faculty. 

*Reprinted in the Pamphlet, entitled “Documents,” which was submitted to 
the Committee by Dr. Machen, pp. 68-71. 


123 


time, and then the matter at issue might have been taken in 
due course to the Board of Directors. But if the encroach- 
ment alluded to was something other than this action— 
which seems to be implied by the expression, “‘coupled with,” 
—the President has failed to indicate just wherein the en- 
croachment consisted. But in any event it does not seem 
to me that the action of the Faculty displayed ‘a temper 
which ... issubversive of Christian fellowship and jeopardizes 
the usefulness of the Seminary.” It was simply the expression 
of the judgment of the Faculty that the business of the 
Faculty would be facilitated by a Committee organization 
which would give proper recognition to the majority and the 
minority of the Faculty. The right of making Committee 
appointments is not vested in the office of the President as 
defined in the Plan of the Seminary, Article II, but is a function 
of the Faculty which it may exercise either indirectly through 
its presiding officer or directly whether by nomination from 
the floor or by nomination through a committee.® 


IV. The Attitude of the Faculty to the Church 


After speaking of the importance of the function assigned 
to the Faculty in the Plan of the Seminary and of the duties 
of the members of the Faculty as Presbyters—a duty so 
worthily discharged in the past, the President formulates a 
question in regard to the present situation and gives an 
answer to it. He says (T., p. 50). 

“But should the Faculty on this or any other account take 
itself seriously, and assume the functionsgof a Board of 
censors, or a board of strategy for the whole Church in general 
and the Presbyterian Church in particular? This is just 
what has taken place in Princeton Seminary within the past 
three years under the active leadership of Dr. Machen.” 

I was not aware that the majority of the Faculty had taken 
themselves seriously; and I think the President has perhaps 
not understood that it is their convictions, and not them- 
selves, which the members of the Faculty take* seriously. 
Equally erroneous is the assertion that the Faculty has 
assumed ‘‘the functions of a board of. censors, or a board of 
strategy for the whole Church in general and the Presbyterian 
Church in particular.” I know of no action of the Faculty 
which gives ground for either supposition, unless reference 
be to the Faculty’s choice of preachers—and that matter has 


The Report of the Committee of Seven says in Paragraph 3: ‘Under the 
Plan and general oversight of the Board of Directors the ordinary govern- 
ment of the Seminary is committed to the Faculty, and it is competent to 
determine under rules of its own making all matters committed to it under the 
Plan.” 


124 


been discussed in my Memorandum (M., pp. 10-12). But if 
reference be to the attitude of the members of the majority 
of the Faculty toward the public policy of the Church, then 
as individuals neither their right to their opinion on these 
matters can be denied, nor their right to act in accordance 
with their convictions as members of Presbytery, nor their 
right to discuss such issues in the public press. Certainly 
such action as they have taken in these respects does not 
seem to me to justify the charge that is made by the President. 
This right has been freely exercised in the past by members 
of the Faculty and by members of the Board of Directors 
and has never been questioned before, so far as I known, by 
any member of either body. 

The President states (T., p. 51), that “the majority of the 
faculty have accepted Dr. Machen’s diagnosis as to health 
conditions in the Presbyterian Church, and have pinned their 
hopes on the heroic measures which Dr. Macartney (and 
the Philadelphia Presbytery have) proposed. No minority 
member has taken issue with them for doing this, but they, 
on the other hand, have passed judgment upon their non- 
concurring brethren in the Faculty and have adopted a 
policy of suspicion, distrust and discrimination against them.” 

It is true that as a commissioner to the General Assembly 
at Indianapolis, I favored and voted for the Philadelphia 
Overture of 1928. The other members of the majority of 
the Faculty also favored this ecclesiastical policy, as I pointed 
out in my Memorandum (M., p. 5); but I do not think that 
the members of the majority of the Faculty favored the 
Philadelphia Overture of 1924'—certainly I did not. It is 
incorrect, therefore, to say that the majority of the Faculty 
have “pinned their hopes on the heroic measures which Dr. 
Macartney and the Philadelphia Presbytery have proposed.”’ 


The President says, as if it were by contrast a noteworthy 
virtue, that no minority member has taken issue with them 
for doing this. But why should they, if by taking issue more 
is meant than holding a different opinion on the subject and 
acting in accordance with that opinion? If no more than 
this was meant, then of course they did. But if only this 


—— 





“The words in parenthesis appear in the copy of the President’s Statement 
which he kindly sent to me (p. 4), but are absent from.the Transcript. The 
use of the plural in the phrase, ‘‘heroic measures,”’ justifies the inference that 
the President and the members of the minority, in so far as he represents them, 
differed from the members of the majority not only in their attitude toward 
the Philadelphia Overture of 1924 but also in their attitude toward the 
Philadelphia Overture of 1923. 

*I am informed that one member of the majority of the Faculty supported this 


Overture in the Presbytery of Philadelphia, although he felt some doubt 
about its wisdom. 


125 


was meant, then surely it was not a noteworthy virtue, since 
the members of the majority were entirely within their rights, 
however hopeless these ‘‘heroic measures”? may have seemed to 
the minority. In contrast with this considerate attitude of 
the minority, the President describes in rather ungenerous 
terms the attitude of the majority toward the minority as 
passing “judgment” upon them and adopting “a policy of 
suspicion, distrust and discrimination against them.’’ In 
this the President, I think, fails to distinguish between differ- 
ing from the opinion or policy of a person and passing judg- 
ment upon a person, and reveals still further the effect of 
this confusion in his charge of ‘‘suspicion and distrust.”’ 
The charge of ‘‘discrimination’’ against a person is also a 
highly colored representation of the fact that in some issues 
it is quite impossible to separate persons from the opinion 
which they hold and publicly advocate, they themselves 
being generally unwilling that such a separation should be 
made. 
V. The Faculty Advisership 


My view concerning the reason for the decision of the 
Faculty in the matter of the Faculty Advisership has been 
stated (M., p. 9). But the President, quoting from an article 
by Dr. Allis (T., p. 51), intimates‘that the decision of the 
majority of the Faculty in this matter was based upon ‘‘an 
opinion regarding conditions in the Church and their remedy 
which it differentiates from the opinion of the other members 
of the Faculty, and that it feels justified in making this 
differentiation the basis of discrimination against minority 
members as to the trustworthiness.” 

He even adds that ‘‘this raises the constitutional question 
as to the right of any group in the Faculty, or any member 
of the Faculty, to judge colleagues in the matter of ecclesi- 
astical beliefs and attitudes.”? This, I think, shows misun- ' 
derstanding. The majority of the Faculty by their action 
did not, in my opinion, express a Judgment implying ‘‘dis- 
crimination against minority members,’ because of their 
ecclesiastical policy, ‘‘as to their trustworthiness.” But even 
if, as the President affirms, difference of opinion among 
members of the Faculty concerning ecclesiastical issues, 
raises a constitutional question—and of this the President 
has offered no proof—this was not, in my opinion, at issue 
in that decision. 


VI. The Report of the Committee of Seven 


The President appeals to the Report of the Committee of 
Seven of the Board of Directors in regard not only to the 


126 


doctrinal beliefs of the Faculty but also in regard to the 
attitudes of the members of the Faculty toward conditions in 
the Church. He says (T., p. 51): 

“Tn the report of the Committee of Seven, appointed May 
11, 1925, to make a thorough investigation of the internal 
dissension in the Faculty occasioned by distrust and a divisive 
partisan spirit, it is specifically stated that all the members of 
the Faculty are true to the Standards of the Church and 
their inauguration pledge and that there 1s no room for 
doubt or criticism as to their doctrinal beliefs or attitudes 
toward conditions in the Church.” 

As the doctrinal beliefs of the President are not in- 
volved in the issue between himself and the majority of the 
Faculty, an affirmation in regard to what is conceded is not 
important. But if the Report states, as he affirms, that there 
was no room for doubt or criticism as to the attitude of any 
member of the Faculty toward conditions in the Church, 
then this applies not only to his attitude but to the attitude 
of the members of the majority of the Faculty as well. There 
are, however, two considerations which bear upon the Presi- 
dent’s interpretation of the Report: first, the occasion of the 
appointment of the Committee, and secondly, the exact 
language of the report. In regard to the occasion, the Com- 
mittee was appointed not, as might be inferred from the 
President’s statement, upon the initiative of the Board, but 
upon the petition of the President; and the characterization 
of the condition in the Seminary, which the Committee was 
appointed to investigate as one of “internal dissension in 
the Faculty occasioned by distrust and a divisive partisan 
spirit, was made not by the Board but by the President.® 
Thus the oceasion of the appointment of the Committee 
was a charge made by the President against the Faculty or, 
by natural inference, against the majority of the Faculty. 
The grounds of this charge were set forth in a paper which 
the President read to the Board; but, while the contents of 
that paper have never been disclosed to the Faculty, it may 
reasonably be inferred that the charge was much the same 
as that which has now been laid before you. If this be true, 
then the attitude of the members of the majority of the 


°In his Remit to the Faculty the Secretary of the Board of Directors reported 
among other items of business transacted at the meeting of the Board on 
May 11, 1925, the following: “Dr. Stevenson read a paper which was re- 
ceived and the following recommendation was adopted: That the Board 
appoint a Committee of Seven, four ministers and three ruling elders, to 
make a thorough investigation of the internal affairs of the Seminary on 
the basis of which there has been distrust, dissension, division and distressing 
publicity, this Committee to report to the Board at an adjourned meeting 
to be held not later than the afternoon of June 15, 1925.” 


127 


Faculty “toward conditions in the Church” must have been 

involved. If therefore, upon investigation of this charge, 

the Committee found no room for doubt or criticism of the 

attitude of any member of the Faculty in this regard, its 

reek must have failed to sustain the charge of the Presi- 
ent. 

But secondly, does the language of the Report. sustain the 
President’s statement that the Committee found “no room 
for doubt or criticism’ in regard to the attitudes of the 
Faculty “toward conditions in the Church’? After affirming 
In paragraph 1 the doctrinal loyalty of all the members of 
the Faculty, the report says in paragraph 2: 

“Such differences as have arisen are not due to doctrinal 
discord in the Faculty but to the different attitudes of the 
members of the Faculty to the discussion of questions which 
are agitating the whole Christian world and to temporary 
conditions involving the personal relations of members of the 
Seminary to the government of our Church. If in these 
matters there is not the same unity that there is in matters of 
faith and doctrine, the members of the Faculty in their 
conduct and writing are entitled to exercise that liberty of 
action and of opinion which is fundamental to our faith and 
form of government and particularly to the historic attitude 
of this Seminary.” 

This seems to me to recognize the right of the members of 
the majority equally with the right of the minority to exercise 
in these matters ‘that liberty of action and of opinion which 
is fundamental to our faith and form of government and to 
the historic attitude of this Seminary.” 

This is not, however, quite identical with finding “no room 
for doubt or criticism” of the differing attitudes in these 
matters which exist in the Faculty, since the Report expresses 
no opinion concerning the merits of these attitudes. It 
would, therefore, be more accurate to say that the Report 
expressed no criticism either of the attitude of the majority 
or of the attitude of the minority, the attitude of the majority 
being under investigation on complaint of the President. 

The President further adduces from the Report of the 
Committee of Seven an exhortation to the members of the 
Seminary (T., p. 51), ‘‘to promote the work of the Seminary 
by such restraints as will illustrate to the world the ties of 
fellowship and affection which unite every member of this 
Institution in the common service of our Lord,’’ and says 
(T., p. 51), that “the partisan attitude of the Faculty majority 
disregards this timely exhortation and is a violation of the 
proprieties which should be observed between members of 


4 


128 . 


the Faculty who alike have approved standing according to 
the expressed opinion of the Directors and in the eyes of the 
Presbyterian Church.”’ 

This characterization of the attitude of the majority is 
not, I think, justified by the facts, as I have tried to show in 
my Memorandum; and the designation of their attitude as 
disregarding the “timely exhortation of the Committee” is 
inaccurate, not only because an exhortation cannot be dis- 
regarded before it is given, but the exhortation did not have 
reference to the attitude of the majority which is described 
as “partisan”, but rather to the form in which difference of 
opinion in scholarly publications might properly find ex- 
pression without limitation of that freedom which the Sem- 
inary has always recognized as legitimate.’ Moreover I 
cannot admit that the attitude of the Faculty majority has 
violated the proprieties, unless the principle of majority 
responsibility, commonly recognized not only in ecclesiastical 
but in civil affairs, be either denied or abused. I do not 
think that abuse of this principle has been proven. Com- 
plaint against it must therefore spring from an unwillingness 
on the part of the minority to acquiesce in it when it affects 
them. In its application members of the majority have not 
been reappointed on Committees but no complaint has been 
made that the proprieties were not regarded in their case. 
Indeed no other member of the minority, except the President 
and Professor Erdman, have made complaint in this regard. 


VII. Attitude of the Majority of the Faculty to the 
Assembly 


The President speaks of the attitude of the Faculty ma- 
jority toward the Assembly and the Church (T., pp. 51-52), 
as one of “‘suspicion, distrust and hostility.’’? Doubtless the 
President is referring to the members of the majority of the 
Faculty, for the Faculty majority have taken no action in 
regard to either of these subjects. But here again, I think, 


‘The report says in paragraph 5: ‘It is part of the duty, therefore, of the pro- 
fessors to publish in convenient form the results of their inquiries into theo- 
logical learning and to seek to maintain and extend those principles which 
are embodied in the Standards of our Church and have been exemplified in 
the history of the Seminary. Such scholarly investigation and publication 
cannot be carried on without some differences of opinion with regard to the 
subject matter, the form of statement and the timeliness or form of ex- 
pression. ‘The reconciliation of such differences of opinion is not to be sought 
or found in a limitation of freedom but rather in an exhortation to every 
member of the Seminary to seek the peace of the Church and promote the 
work of the Seminary by such restraints as will temper the forms of state- 
ment and will illustrate to the world the ties of fellowship and affection 
which unite every member of this institution in the common service of Him 
whom we are set to serve and who hath loved us with an everlasting love.” 


129 


the President’s characterization of the attitude of the mem- 
bers of the Faculty majority is not justified. If there be, as 
there may be, difference of opinion about some of the measures 
adopted by the Assembly, and this opinion be held for reasons 
which to them seem good and sufficient, the holding of such 
an opinion by a member of the Faculty should not, without 
proof, be attributed to unworthy motives. 


VIIl. The League of Evangelical Students 


In regard to the statement of the President concerning the 
League of Evangelical Students (T., pp. 52-53), I do not 
think that the League “establishes a doctrinal test as the 
basis of good standing in the Seminary, administered by 
students, which is at variance with the terms of admission 
to the Seminary.” 

The League is a voluntary organization among students of 
the Seminary upon the basis of common Christian principles 
for the purpose of testifying to their faith and of interesting 
other students in the work of the Gospel ministry. It has 
nothing to do with the terms of admission and is not parallel 
with or analagous to a proposal to set up a doctrinal test for 
admission to the Seminary. Membership in it is open to all 
the students in the Seminary who share its principles, are 
interested in its purpose and approve of its methods. Its 
sanction by the majority of the Faculty recognizes the right 
of students to form such organizations; and I do not know 
upon what ground this right could have been denied to them 
in this instance. The President intima tes (Tuo... 53), that 
by this decision and its consequence ‘‘we are stepping down 
from our exalted position of scholarship.” 

But certainly the permission to form such an organization 
has no bearing upon and does not in any way change the 
standard of training for the ministry which is prescribed in 
the Plan of the Seminary. Such a change not even the 
Faculty nor the Board of Directors but the General Assembly 
alone is competent to effect. 

The President thinks that the League brings our students 
into undesirable association with students of Bible Schools 
(T., p. 58); but as I do not share his fears regarding the effect 
of such association, I cannot concur in his formulation of the 
question which your Committee ought to consider. He says 
CT. -» D- 93): 

“Shall Princeton Seminary now, fretted by the inter- 
ference of the General Assembly, in rebellion against the 
Presbyterian Church, as at present organized and controlled, 


130 


because of the fallacy’ that a radical anti-Christian liberalism 
is dominating the courts, agencies and enterprises of said 
Chureh at home and abroad, shall this institution now be 
permitted to swing off to the extreme right wing so as to 
become an interdenominational Seminary for Bible-school- 
premillennial-secession-fundamentalism? This, Mr. Moderator, 
as I see it, is the big question which your Committee ought 
to consider.” 


I know of no rebellion in the Seminary against the Presby- 
terian Church nor of any tendency or desire to become an 
interdenominational Seminary for Bible-schoo]-premillennial- 
secession-fundamentalism, for it cannot reasonably be sup- 
posed that the sanction and presence of a voluntary Chapter 
of the League in the student body can seriously prejudice this 
Institution in respect either of its terms of admission or of 
its educational policy. There might indeed be difference of 
opinion about the wisdom of granting permission to the 
students to form such a Chapter, but certainly if such serious 
consequences as the President describes were plainly involved 
in it, then those who failed to recognize them must have 
judged of the matter from a very different point of view. 
While some think the League unwise in its methods and 
harmful in its effect here, it is certainly true that a majority 
of the students favored it and a majority of the Faculty saw 
no good reason to refuse their sanction to the purpose and 
plans of these students. Some of these effects are however 
due, in my opinion, not to the League and to its adherents 
but to the opposition to the League on the part of a minority 
in the Faculty and among the students. Similar effects have 
appeared in the past in connection with the eating Clubs, 
and like these the difficulties of the present situation will 
doubtless in time bring about their own adjustments more 
satisfactorily if resort is not had to repressive measures. ? 

In regard to the presence of liberalism in the Church, to 
which the President alludes, this is not denied even in the 


’This is the reading in the text of the President’s copy; the Transcript reads 
“assumption.” 

°The Board of Directors adopted a similar attitude in this matter upon recom- 
mendation of the Committee of Seven. The Report of this Committee says 
in paragraph 4: “The student body hitherto has been permitted, with the 
friendly advice of the Faculty ordinarily conveyed by a member of the 
Faculty under powers purposely very vaguely expressed, to organize them- 
selves in such social and devotional associations and clubs as they have 
deemed best calculated to promote their social and communal welfare. It 
does not seem desirable for this Board to curtail their freedom in such mat- 
ters or to regulate their proceedings. If mistakes occur time and ex- 
perience will certainly bring about such corrective measures as may be 
needed and in a manner far more effective and of much larger educational 
value than would result from the assertion of the authority of this Board.” 





131 


Report of the Commission of 1925, and its influence in 
some of the courts of the Church is a fact which cannot be 
dismissed by characterizing as a fallacy (or as an assumption) 
the belief in its existence. And surely the right to oppose it 
cannot be denied to those members of the Faculty who do 
not accept it, if the right not to oppose it is conceded to 
others who do not accept it, each group exercising that 
liberty of opinion and of action in this matter which is recog- 
nized by the Board of Directors as legitimate apart from any 
judgment concerning the relative merits or consistency of 
those differing attitudes. 


IX. An Evangelical Awakening 


The situation is said by the President (T., p. 53), to be 
‘made all the more difficult by the conviction on the 
part of the majority of the Faculty that this revolt against 
influences and policies supposed to be controlling factors in 
the Seminary and in the Church for several years past, is in 
answer to prayer, and marked by the presence and power of 
the Holy Spirit.” 

In support of this statement about the conviction of the 
majority of the Faculty, a quotation is made from Dr. 
Machen’s book and another from an article in The Presby- 
terian, referring to ‘“‘an evangelical awakening in the Church’”’ 
which latter (T., p. 55) is spoken of by the President— 
apparently with scorn—as ‘“‘the awakening which he (2. e., 
Dr. Machen) and Dr. Macartney brought about.” Certainly 
the President has not made the situation less difficult by 
his statement. For it is true that members of the majority 
of the Faculty have made the consistency of the Church’s 
witness to the Reformed Faith a subject of prayer, holding 
as they do that Faith very dear, and in doing so they may 
also have believed that the response which was made to the 
endeavor to secure such consistency was in answer to prayer. 
Believing this, the hope may well have been quickened that 
the Church would be blessed with an evangelical awakening. 
That human agents might be employed in such an awakening 
is not an unnatural inference from Christian premises. It is 
therefore distressing to learn that such an attitude and such 
a hope can be characterized as it is by one who does not agree 
with the opinion of his colleagues concerning these matters 
or share their conviction that even as methods of ecclesiastical 
policy may be a proper subject of prayer, so may their issue 
be interpreted as evidencing an answer to the prayer of faith. 
And nothing, I think, could more plainly than this indicate 
the difference not only in opinion but in spirit, which separates 


132 


the President from those who hold the views which’ he so 
strongly condemns. 


X. The Future of the Seminary 


The President concludes his statement with this question 
Clay Oardath. 

“Ts this Seminary to be what its Charter prescribes (The 
Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the 
U.S. A.), or to be the institution of a turbulent section in our 
own. and other churches?”’ 

To this I would reply that the Seminary has been and 
still is the Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, loyal to 
the provisions of its Plan, loyal to its trust obligations, and 
loyal to the standards of our Church; and that neither I nor 
other members of the majority of the Faculty can acquiesce 
in the characterization of those who have responsibility for 
the policy and welfare of the Seminary as ‘a turbulent 
section in our own and other churches.” 


XI. Conclusion 


Let me say in conclusion that I tried in my Memorandum 
to present some of the issues upon which there has been 
difference of opinion in our Faculty. I sought to show that 
this difference of opinion found expression in different con- 
crete decisions, and I attempted to indicate briefly the reasons 
for the decisions of the majority of the Faculty in some of 
these issues. The statement of factinmy memorancum showed 
that upon all of them the attitude of the President differed 
from that of the majority of the Faculty; and in conclusion 
I pointed out the reason for the attitude of the majority of 
the Faculty toward the administrative policy of the President 
as formulated in his speech at Baltimore. In this my Response 
to the Statement by the President to the Committee I have 
endeavored to review the issues which he presented and to 
relate my view of them to his interpretation and opinion, 
more particularly in so far as his Statement concerned the 
majority of the Faculty. | 

In regard to the form of the President’s Statement, I 
cannot but think it unfortunate that the attitude of the 
majority of the Faculty should be described as pervasively 
in terms of “suspicion,” of ‘‘distrust,’’ of “dissension,” of 
“division,” of “discrimination,” of “hostility,” and of “a 
partisan spirit.”” Such a description seems to me neither 
just nor true; and I have listened to the repetition of it with 
diminishing interest. I regard it not only as improper but as 
unprofitable, since, without concession of honesty of motive, 


133 
there is no common ground upon which difference of opinion 
may be discussed with mutual respect and without detriment 
to mutual good-will and e:teem. 

But even such a difference of opinion in regard to the 
standards of discussion is not of great importance; and 
certainly it is not the fundamental issue in the Seminary. 
This issue is not the fact of difference of opinion in the Faculty, 
or the form in which it is expressed, or the various occasions 
of it, since, with one exception, these matters do not seriously 
affect the welfare of the Seminary. This, however, is not 
true of the administrative policy of the President. Apart 
from his office, the attack by the President upon the majority 
of the Faculty and his public opposition to the judgment ‘of 
the Board of Directors would have no greater significance 
than a similar action by another member of the Faculty. But 
a policy which the President advocates in opposition to the 
Board of Directors is related directly to the welfare of the 
Seminary, since it seeks to determine the Seminary’s course; 
and this, as experience has taught, is fraught with serious 
consequence. It is ultimately for this reason that the ma- 
jority of the Faculty have expressed to you (M., p. 15) their 
deliberate opinion that the fundamental issue in the Seminary 
is the administrative policy of the President. 

The grounds of the President’s policy in the present issue 
have been presented to you, and to them response has now 
been made in so far as they concern the majority of the 
Faculty. We of the majority therefore rest, with the state- 
ment that the principles for which we have contended are, 
in our opinion, of supreme importance to the welfare of the 
Seminary as wegunderstand it and seek to serve it—those 
principles being, in brief summary: 

1. The authority of the Board of Directors under the 
Plan to determine the policy of the Seminary. 

2. The right of the Board of Directors to maintain, and of 
the Faculty to teach and defend, the doctrinal position of the 
Seminary under the Constitution of the Church. 

3. The right of majority responsibility and control in the 
conduct of the affairs committed to the Faculty by the Plan or 
by the Board of Directors. 

4, The right of the members of the Faculty in the dis- 
charge of their duty as Presbyters to exercise liberty of opinion 
and of action in matters pertaining to the public policy of the 
Church. 

5. The right of the students under Faculty supervision to 
form organizations on the basis of Christian principles for 
worthy purposes. 


134 


Upon these principles we have based our statements; and we 
venture to express the hope that they will commend them- 
selves to your judgment. 


* * *" * * 


Extracts from the Interlocutory Discussion at the 
Second Faculty Hearing 


Dr. Thompson: The Committee seems to think it might be 
well, as a matter of convenience, for Dr. Erdman to make a 
brief reply to the specific questions of Dr. Vos, without inter- 
fering with a more extended statement. 

Dr. Erdman: With reference to the statement that Dr. 
Machen called me a modernist, I think Dr. Machen has never 
called me a modernist. I have no such memory of having 
made such a statement, and if I have said it, I withdraw it 
and apologize now. 

Dr. Thompson: Does that satisfy Dr: Vos? Dr. Vos: 
Yes. 

Dr. Erdman: In reference to my changing an article which 
I had written. My change was to entirely delete the sentence 
where the phrase ‘‘editors’” was used. The word ‘‘editors”’ 
was not made “editor’’ but it was deleted before the article 
reached Dr. Kennedy. 

Dr. Luccock: I think you said that you had no reference 
to him. 

Dr. Erdman: I had no reference to Dr. Vos. 

Dr. Vos: I would like him to reply, whether he had 
another member of the faculty in mind. I would like him to 
say who it was, if he feels like it, or it was not this or that one. 

Dr. Erdman: I had supposed that the article emanated 
from a certain editor of the Presbyterian, but I afterwards 
found that I was mistaken in such a suspicion. I have in 
writing before the Committee a reply to Dr. Allis’ question, 
and I can read that if desired. 

Dr. Allis: May I ask Dr. Erdman whether he has stated 
who he meant, who the member of the faculty was? 

Dr. Erdman: I have made no affirmation to anyone as to 
what I suspected, but I did think the material came from Dr. 
Allis. I never said he wrote the article, and I never said that 
Dr. Machen wrote it. But I think the material came from 
Dr. Allis because of statements he made at the time. 

Dr. Allis: May I ask Dr. Erdman, was not he aware that 
Dr. Machen had been an editor, and that I have never been an 
editor of the Presbyterian? I have written for it, but Dr. 
Machen had been an editor. It was announced on December 
27, 1923, that five men would be associated with Dr. Kennedy 


135 
| a Associate Editors, and Dr. Machen was named among 
them. 

Dr. Thompson: You were not named? : 

Dr. Allis: I was not named. I do not understand the 
phraseology, because it seems to me plain that Dr. Machen 
was meant, and would be naturally understood as the one who 
was meant. 

Dr. Erdman: AssoonasI was given a copy of the Presby- 
terian I looked to see who were the editors, and I saw that 
the one I had suggested, Dr. Allis, was not an editor. Imme- 
diately I telegraphed saying, “‘Cut out the whole paragraph.”’ 
I corrected my own statement, and Dr. Kennedy got it three 
days ahead. 

Dr. Machen: May I ask Dr. Erdman if he can present to 
this committee the text of that telegram; can he present the 
exact text of the telegram to which he alludes? 

Dr. Erdman: It can be secured from the office of the 
Presbyterian. Dr. Kennedy has it. I don’t think it is a vital 
point. 

Dr. Thompson: I don’t know what the habit of the 
Western Union would be in that matter. | 

Dr. Erdman: I did not keep a copy of it. 

Dr. Thompson: All you can speak from is memory. Do 
you suppose the Presbyterian has it, Dr. Machen? 

Dr. Machen: I have no knowledge. It seems a matter of 
vital importance to have the exact wording of that telegram. 

Dr. Thompson: Who would be responsible for deleting 
the portion if the telegram was received, and the article? 
Would it be the Editor, Dr. Kennedy, the business manager? 
Assume for the moment that Dr. Erdman had sent the 
telegram asking that a certain portion be deleted, and that 
telegram was received in time, whose business would it have 
been? ) 

Dr. Machen: It would have been the business of the 
responsible editor of the Presbyterian, Dr. Kennedy. He isin 
charge of the editing of the paper. 

Dr. Thompson: If he did that, the chances are that the 
telegram might not have been filed away and kept. 

Dr. Armstrong: I don’t seem to get the matter clear in my 
mind. It seems that the telegram was sent to the editor of 
the Presbyterian at the time the article was sent, and reached 
the editor of the Presbyterian before the letter reached him, 
but though the editor of the Presbyterian did not publish the 
letter, the letter was published first in the Advance. As I 
understand it, Dr. Erdman said that he sent the telegram to 
the Presbyterian, and. he wrote a letter to the Advance, but 
the editor of the Advance published the letter, and it was only 


136 


a week later that the Presbyterian published it as a reprint. 
I was not quite clear as to the connection. 

Dr. Erdman: That is the fault of Dr. Kennedy. If Dr. 
Kennedy had not reprinted from the Advance, Dr. Machen 
would not have written as he did write. Dr. Kennedy did a 
ereat wrong in not printing what he got first. He reprinted 
from something which he got ten days later. Dr. Kennedy 
should have stated that I had deleted that phrase. 

Dr. Luccock: Dr. Machen, do you have any question in 
your mind about Dr. Erdman having sent this telegram after 
he makes the statement that he did? 

Dr. Machen: I decline to answer that question. It 
hardly seems to be a proper question. I have not made any 
allegation against Dr. Erdman’s truthfulness in this matter. 
Dr. Erdman has not cited the exact wording of this telegram. 
Not the general substance of the telegram namely, but the 
exact wording of the telegram seems to be votally important. 
Dr. Erdman has not himself stated that the exact wording 
was. 

Dr. Erdman: I said, Delete the phrase ‘‘who are also 
editors of the Presbyterian.”’ | 

Dr. Machen: Let us see if we can reconstruct the tele- 
eram. Delete the phrase, Who are also editors of the Presby- 
terlan. Then the question of course arises, how the letter 
would have read if that phrase had been deleted, and what 
possible bearing it can have on the question at issue. If the 
phrase were deleted, it does not seem to me that it could have 
been intelligible. I cannot see how anything is changed. 

Dr. Luecock: Do I understand that the Advance pub- 
lished later a corrected statement? Dr. Erdman: Yes. 

Dr. Machen: The Presbyterian Advance inserted, so far 
as [am aware, what is printed in my “Documents,” pp. 38-39. 
In that connection I desire to call your attention to the fact 
that Dr. Erdman is said there to have written to the Presby- 
terian Advance. He did not telegraph to the Presbyterian 
Advance, but he wrote to the Presbyterian Advance. The 
article had already appeared. I cannot see how the correction 
even if it had been more important than it was, would have 
changed the essential features of the situation. He thought 
two Princeton men were editors, but later found only one 
man. The inference I would draw would be to change the 
plural to the singular. I think that is the impression the public 
got, that two men were listed, and he is blaming these men, 
he thought there were two men, but later found that only one 
was named. The inference the public would draw is that he had 
intended to make his letter refer to me who am the only 
editor of the Presbyterian. There is not the slightest hint 


137 


there that he desired to delete the clause. Suppose the clause 
were deleted, how would the letter then read? The letter 
appears in “Documents,” p. 10-138. Suppose we delete in 
accordance with Dr. Erdman’s memory. I cannot see that 
the sentence is intelligible, but it still contains an attack upon 
some members of the faculty, and then the entire next para- 
eraph goes on to discuss the spirit of those members of the 
faculty. The thing by which I feel aggrieved does not depend 
at all upon one phrase in that article, but it is the entire attack 
which runs through that section of the letter, upon certain 
members of the faculty of the Seminary. I contend that the 
public never received any intimation that I was not attacked 
and was excluded from this attack, and I contend in the 
second place that if the attack was directed against colleagues 
of mine, I am still inclined to feel aggrieved by it. The 
public was certainly never given any intimation that I was not 
intended. That is the point to which I refer. 

Dr. Thompson: Dr. Machen, do you think that you 
are left as a sole survivor of this attack, all other members of 
the faculty having been eliminated, and whatever damage or 
injury comes to you abides, but the others are relieved? 

Dr. Machen: No sir. I contend almost the opposite of 
that, that the plural was used, and still there is no explanation 
of the plural at all. The correction made in the Presbyterian 
Advance might lead someone to think that I alone was in- 
vended, and yet if the reason for the use of the plural was that 
Dr. Erdman thought more than one member of the faculty 
was also an editor of the Presbyterian, there must have been 
in his mind a desire of criticism of a plurality of the members 
of the faculty, and the mere fact that he felt someone else was 
a member of the editorial staff of the Presbyterian, when he 
was not really an editor, does not explain the original use of 
the plural. 

Dr. Thompson: If I get the proper impression, it was: 
here is a letter which casts reflection upon members of the 
faculty who are also editors. Now Dr. Erdman makes an 
effort, let us say, to delete enough of that to strike out the 
plural phrase. Suppose he succeeds. He still leaves one 
editor of the paper, and the paper shows that that person 1s 
J. Gresham Machen, so that whatever of infelicity remains, 
it is certainly fastened upon Dr. Machen. It seemed to me 
that if the other members of the faculty had gotten out from 
under, you are the one person who remains on whom the 
burden has fallen. 

Dr. Luccock: I agree with Dr. Machen that the effect of 
the deletion is to give a sort of blanket criticism of the mem- 
bers of the faculty. I think the effect of the turn that Dr. 


138 


Erdman’s statement gives to us is, that Dr. Erdman did not 
intend to reflect personally on Dr. Machen. I do not think 
that gets Dr. Erdman out from under the charge that he has 
criticized the members of the faculty. I don’t think the 
correction he made takes off that sting. 

Dr. Erdman: I admit that frankly, and I admit that in 
my own mind there was a relation between members of the 
faculty who had been closely associated with the Presby- 
terian, and this attack. An attack appeared in the Presby- 
terian, which another editor told me was untrue and unfair 
and which demanded some answer. I went to the editor and 
said I did not think it was true and I wanted a chance to 
answer. The next article he wrote was this one, and I thought 
it would be well to answer it. It had two specific charges. 
One was that I had injured the First Presbyterian Church, 
and that I was aiding to defeat this Seminary. I was defending 
the Church and the Seminary; and I was stating that the 
Church had never been in connection with the University and 
was not given to rationalism, and I was defending the Semi- 
nary by the statement that any division was due to a spirit of 
bitterness. I am sorry now that it was written. What I 
stated seemed to me to be true, and seems to be at the bottom 
of a great deal of our trouble. Dr. Machen was an editor of 
the Presbyterian at this time, and he never attempted to 
shield me from any attack that came out in the Presbyterian. 
Now came this egregious attack, and when I answered it, 
instead of disclaiming any complicity with such an attack, Dr. 
Machen, as an editor of the Presbyterian, writes to state that 
what I have stated is not true, that there is a division here, 
and it is due to my indifference as to doctrine, and moreover, 
that I am willing to take sides with and make common cause 
with those who are willing to oppose Christianity itself. He 
states that in answer to my article. He has obviously been 
wrong in that whole course. He was responsible with the 
other editors for not correcting the statement. I did not have 
him in mind when I wrote this reply. My intention was to 
show that we are not doctrinally divided. I am not doc- 
trinally indifferent. I wish to oppose rationalism as much as 
any other man. What has divided us is a bitter intolerant 
spirit. I have no doubt I have shown it and I regret it. Ido 
want to get it out of my heart. 

If I could explain just a word, Dr. Machen, about the 
Advance. I wrote the letter to the Presbyterian and asked 
that it be published. Then I telegraphed the same afternoon, 
so that they would have the correct form. I wrote to the 
Advance saying to them that this article was being sent to 
the Presbyterian, and if it was not published in the Presby-. 


139 


terian, they should publish it if they wished. I see now my 
mistake in not thinking it was so important to write the 
Advance. I wrote a letter to them. Unfortunately the 
Advance was on press when my first letter arrived. They, 
cleaned off the whole back page and put that letter in. 

Dr. Luccock: You did not authorize them to print until 
the Presbyterian had had time not to print? 

Dr. Erdman: That was my intention. I thought it 
would come out in the Presbyterian in the correct form. 

Dr. Luccock: Ishould like to ask you this question. Have 
you ever foltowed Christ’s rule in Matthew 18:15—both of 
you? 

Dr. Erdman: I did meet Dr. Machen and I did it with the 
best of intention. He afterwards wrote me that he was 
excited and we did not get as far as we might. 

Dr. Machen: I did write to Dr. Erdman. If he had come 
to talk about the matter, I should have been delighted to 
receive him in accordance with the injunction you suggest. 

Dr. Lucecock: Why didn’t you initiate it? It might have 
been a wise thing to go to him then. | 

Dr. Machen: I think Dr. Erdman should have come to me. 

Dr. Erdman: Did I not come and say, we differ here, we 
seem to have misunderstanding of each other, we ought to 
talk these matters over ? 

Dr. Luccock: The impression that 1s on the Church is that 
the greatest trouble in Princeton Seminary is that you men 
who are appointed to teach young men to preach the Gospel of 
reconciliation, are not yourselves applying it to your own 
relationships. 

Dr. Machen: That is entirely true, and I have tried to 
show Dr. Erdman’s contribution to that. The personal attack 
such as he made against colleagues in the Presbyterian Ad- 
vance was a most extraordinary thing. As I have said I am 
delighted if a proper settlement is effected. I should be most 
overjoyed. I have not received any advance from Dr. Erd- 
man, and I regard myself distinctly as the injured party. I 
should be overjoyed if I found sorrow on Dr. Erdman’s part 
for the injury he has wrought against me and nothing would 
give me greater delight than to restore our relationship. 

Dr. Luccock: Christ’s rule is that the injured party should 
go to the one who has transgressed against. him and lay the 
grievance before him. 

Dr. Machen: Before it becomes public. 

Dr. Erdman: I did go to him and I did say we should 
become Christian friends and his letter indicates that he did 
not feel like so doing at that time. I think I have a copy of 
his letter. I walked with him as far as I could, he kept going 


140 


away from me, and I followed for a long distance. He said 
the gulf is too great between us and that it is a matter of 
principle. Dr. Machen insists I have attacked him in public. 
I have not done so except in my statement that there is a 
spirit of bitterness in the faculty. It is true and it has been 
true for some time. I am willing to do all that I can to get 
that spirit out. 

Dr. Machen: I would like to say this, that I think that 
one of the mistakes which has contributed to this unfortunate 
personal situation here is that we have not honored the facts; 
that we cannot have understanding unless we first make 
perfectly plain what the exact facts are upon which we base 
our criticism of one another. Dr. Erdman made a very 
sweeping indictment of me because of my acquiescence in 
attacks which Dr. Erdman says had been made in the Pres- 
byterian, and had been made over a period of time. He has 
not presented to you these attacks. He has not presented the 
evidence upon which he has based a very serious allegation 
against me. I have endeavored in this collection of documents 
to present the facts, to document what I have said, and I do 
think we should make great progress if at every time when 
assertions are made about attacks in the Presbyterian, that 
the exact page should be cited where these attacks are found. 
Tam unable to agree with Dr. Erdman’s characterization of the 
article by the editor of the Presbyterian. He has cited the sub- 
stance of that in a way which I think is not in accordance with 
the wording of it which appears here. We are getting more and 
more in a morass unless everything we assert is documented. 
They should be cited so that I can examine them to see on 
what the objection is based. I should like to see, if it can be 
obtained, the exact wording of the telegram to which Dr. 
Erdman has referred, because in the form in which it now 
seems to be, the letter still seems to me to involve the objec- 
tionable features to which I have referred. I do not see that 
the letter could have been published in that form because it 
would have been unintelligible. The matter would be clarified 
by having the exact wording of the telegram. And there are 
a great many other matters of fact in what Dr. Erdman has 
said which I would like to take up. I do not know whether 
I am engaged in the debate in a satisfactory way. But to 
secure the exact facts upon which our criticisms of one another 
are based does seem to me extremely important and will, I. 
think, contribute to a real settlement of this unfortunate 
matter. 

There is one matter I want to speak of. The original 
publication of the letter in the Presbyterian Advance. I have 
received the impression from Dr. Erdman that he did not 





14] 


intend that letter to be published in the Advance until it had 
been first determined whether the Presbyterian would print 
it. But he has told us that he does not remember the exact 
wording of his letter to the Advance. The editor of the 
Advance in his first printing of the letter states something 
with regard to the way in which it came to him which seems 
to be contradictory to what Dr. Erdman intended when he 
sent it to the editor of the Advance. In Documents, p. 
10,. . .“probably on the assumption that the Presbyterian 
will not print a communication which so exposes the methods 
by which it spreads slander concerning even the most con- 
servative men, etc.’’ The editor of the Advance clearly 
displays there a complete ignorance of any admonition that 
he should delay the publication until it had been determined 
whether the Presbyterian would publish it. It was sent not 
as a general letter, but as a letter to the Presbyterian, to 
another editor so that that other editor could print it, not as 
a general letter, but as a letter to the Presbyterian. That 
seems to me to run counter to all canons of literary propriety 
and if it was not intended that the letter should be published 
in the Advance until after the Presbyterian had refused to 
publish it, I cannot see any reason for sending it to the 
Advance at all at that early stage. It would have been the 
property of the Presbyterian until it was determined whether 
they would publish it. It might have been sent as a general 
letter for simultaneous publication. The editor of the Ad- 
vance displays a total ignorance of any admonition from Dr. 
Erdman that the publication of the letter should be delayed 
until after the Presbyterian had refused to publish it. He 
says it was sent probably on the assumption that the Pres- 
byterian would refuse to publish it. 

_ Dr. Erdman: There was no statement of Dr. Machen’s 
name, to say the least. What he proceeds to do is to issue a 
long statement in which there is a specific attack upon me by 
name. It was published all through the country. His entire 
letter is a personal attack upon my personal integrity as a 
Christian minister. Can that be proven by anything in my 
life as a Christian minister for the last forty years? Dr. 
Machen took occasion from my statement that there was 
bitterness in this faculty, to take that to himself and he wrote 
his article for which he has never apologized. He followed 
that up by a good many actions which are personal in their 
character. And it seems to me that as Christian men, we 
ought to put these things behind us. The general public 1s 
not interested in them. They want us to live together as 
Christians. We ought to forget them and to delete them 
from our memories. We have made mistakes, but let’s live 


142 


together as Christian gentlemen and call the chapter a closed 
chapter. Mine was not a personal attack by name, what he 
did was. It seems to me that we ought to get together as 
Christian gentlemen and forget the past, and not suspect one 
another. 

Dr. Thompson: Dr. Luccock has been rather clear and 
insistent upon Christ’s method. We have pretty near taken 
the step for both of you gentlemen. We have paved the way 
as much as we can. We cannot do one thing more than we 
have done, and unless you two gentlemen can resolve these 
differences, no resolution of this faculty can doit. The faculty 
are as helpless as this committee. Dr. Machen’s paper today 
has set up a principle with which I agree, that the great 
issues before the Church are the fact and character of God, 
the fact and character of Christ, the fact and character of the 
Scriptures, all leading up to the great fact of supernaturalism 
and the proclaiming of the Gospel. He cited this much better 
than I can. That is the great issue for which this seminary 
is standing and all seminaries of instruction, and we are 
standing for it in the standards of the Westminster Confession. 
But the differences within the body of the faculty which have 
been asserted here and affirmed, ought to be in some way 
resolved. This committee would be helpless in the situation. 
I was not even assuming that the faculty can resolve the 
differences between two members. If there were differences 
between Dr. Wilson and Dr. Loetscher, all you could do would 
‘be to say, What are you going to do to resolve them? We 
have done all we can. I don’t think the faculty can do any- 
thing more, nor can the directors, nor the trustees. We have 
arrived at a stage of helplessness so far as we ourselves are 
concerned. Talk about the doctrine of inability—we have 
reached that point. 


Dr. Erdman: It does seem to me the whole trouble i Is a 
past difference between Dr. Machen and myself. 

Dr. Thompson: That is only one fact in it. 

Dr. Erdman: But I do feel, according to Dr. Machen’s 
statement here, that Dr. Machen thinks it is more serious 
than any personal difference. He really believes, I think he 
does, that I want to make this an inclusive seminary, or in 
some way favor the forces of rationalism or liberalism, and 
that I do not want to make common cause against them but 
with them. If this committee could persuade Dr. Machen 
that I am perfectly sincere in my statements in defending the 
evangelical faith, and have not done anything else in my life, 
if we “could persuade Dr. Machen that that is true, I believe 
he would forgive me for what is past. 

Dr. Thompson: But there are administrative difficulties 
in which the President was involved, when you have answered 





143 


that situation. The statement was made here that Dr. 
Stevenson and Dr. Erdman have both been unwilling to 
contend, or whatever term may be used, in their attitude 
toward unapproved elements. That has been unfortunate. I 
thought that statement, as I read it, was a strong statement. 

Dr. Luccock: The importance of this personal relation is 
not that it is the biggest issue. If this is resolved we can talk 
over the other things as friends and not have the personal 
issue beclouding them. 

Dr. Vos: It seems if there is to be handshaking—his letter 
still goes on in an indefinite way to say there is bitterness in 
the faculty, that it is not confined to one person, it is a disease 
spread through the whole faculty. If that is to be resolved, 
I wish to shake hands with Dr. Erdman. 

Dr. Hodge: I do not wish to say very much, because I 
spoke too much before. I wish to plead with this committee 
not to think that the troubles here are simply matters of 
bitterness of spirit. There is a fundamental difference with 
respect to the church’s witness to the truth. I agree with 
everything Dr. Erdman says about his own views and his 
own orthodoxy and all of that. I give my hearty recognition 
to everything he says, but I must judge by the votes cast for 
him in the Assembly, by the fact that the whole of the New 
York Presbytery and Synod were rejoiced at his election, not 
because he agreed with them, but because he would make it 
easier for them than Dr. Macartney; and by his defense of 
the 1920 reunion program; and when he was Moderator, after 
the judicial decision had been given in respect to the case of 
the Virgin Birth, he took up Dr. Matthews’ suggestion to 
appoint a Special Commission, when they had a report that 
was signed and sealed to settle all unrest in the Church. I 
agree thoroughly that Dr. Erdman’s own views are no doubt 
just as my views, but. I do believe that there are differences 
here with respect to the attitude which individual members of 
the seminary take as to the importance of the church’s 
testimony to the truth, which are fundamental and deep 
seated, and which have nothing to do with personal bitterness 
at all, and I protest against the idea that this 1s a matter of 
personal bitterness. I have not any bitterness for anybody. 
It is a question of principles, and men can differ a out 
principles without getting bitter about it. But you cannot 
say that because men agree together with respect to doctrine 
that they agree with respect to the importance of the doctrine 
of the importance of the Church’s testimony. 

Dr. Thompson: Do you mean to say that there is no 
impression made upon the student body, and the church at 
large, that there is bitterness here? 


‘~ 


144 


Dr. Hodge: I think there has been great misrepresentation 
made upon the church at large and upon the student body 
here. 

Dr. Luccock: I quite-agree with you, there is a good deal 
more to it than personal differences. 

Dr. Hodge: There are more important things. 

Dr. Luccock: Both issues are here and we have to deal 
with all the issues, and do not think for a moment that 
because just now the emphasis 1 is on the personal difference, 
that the other is out of mind. 

Dr. Hodge: I understood the chairman to imply that 
these matters of personal bitterness were things that had 
practically brought the committee to a standstill, and they 
were the fundamental things, at least that is what was told 
to me. 

Dr. Thompson: I think you did not get that clearly. So 
far as the resolution of these two men are concerned, we have 
gone as far as we can go. That is only one factor in the issues. 
This is the thing that is immediately before us. I don’t see 
what more we can do to bring about the reconciliation of 
these two men, in this matter of publicity in the Presbyterian 
which seems by common consent to be a matter of offense to 
both parties. Dr. Erdman says Dr. Machen’s statement has 
hurt him. Nobody has been prepared to dispute this state- 
ment. What reconciliation can be made. Each seems to have 
ground of offense toward the other. We could settle that by 
some other method perhaps. 

Dr. Machen: Do I understand you to state that it 1s your 
judgment that Dr. Erdman has ground of offense? 

Dr. Thompson: He states that he has. 

Dr. Machen: Dr. Erdman made some reference to some- 

thing which was in the hands of the Committee in writing. 
May I ask if it be proper to say whether Dr. Erdman has made ~- 
a statement, as I thought he had not? 

Ae. Erdman: I sent in a few sentences in reply to a 
question by Dr. Allis. 

Dr. Machen: The principle I ade was, that any 
of these statements should be sent to the interested parties. 
I have not seen Dr. Erdman’s statement. ; 

A letter of Dr. Erdman to Dr. Thompson, was then read as 
follows: 

‘““My dear Dr. Thompson: 

Let me thank you for the transcription of the Hearing of 
the Faculty by the General Assembly’s Committee. 

By the statements on page 74 I am reminded that a request 
was made for me to put in writing my impression as to the 
authorship of the article in the Philadelphia Presbyterian of 


- 





145 


January 29, 1925, which intimated that my installation as 
pastor of the First Presbyterian Church was strengthening 
the forces of rationalism and so endangering the interests of 
the Seminary. 

Allow me to state that I never supposed that Dr. Machen 
was concerned in the authorship of this article. Inasmuch as 
Dr. Allis had expressed great opposition to the arrangements 
which were being made for my installation, I had imagined 
that he was in some way concerned with the origin of the 
article in question, but as I had no proof, I have never made 
any statement as to its authorship other than to say that I 
did not attribute it to Dr. Machen. 

Let me ask the Committee to request Dr. Allis to state in 
writing whether he was the author or whether he has any 
knowledge as to the authorship or origin of this article. 

My reply to this article attempted to defend the First 
Church, and also to defend the Seminary by stating that the 
Faculty of the Seminary was not divided on doctrinal issues, 
but that the divisions were due to suspicion and a bitterness 
of feeling. 

Dr. Machen seized upon the opportunity of making what 
seemed to me a very injurious attack upon me in which he 
associated the name of Dr. John Timothy Stone. To this 
attack I never made any reply. ‘The Additional Statement”’ 
published by Dr. Machen, December 18, bases its charges 
almost entirely upon the one or two incidental sentences in 
my reply, with some further references to the ‘‘basis of union 
of 1920.” I will not burden the Committee by any detailed 
discussion of this ‘‘Additional Statement,’’ only to say that it 
does not seem to me that it is either temperate or true. It can 
easily be judged, however, in the light of the facts already in 
the hands of the Committee. 

I refer to it more particularly, however, in order to answer 
the pertinent question asked by Dr. Luccock (on page 74 of 
the transcript you have sent to the Faculty.) It was Dr. 
Luccock’s suggestion that Dr. Machen and I should state our 
grievances and also the terms on which the differences might 
be resolved. Let me say then that my grievance against Dr. 
Machen is that ever since 1920 he has been making state- 
ments in reference to me which I regard to be untrue and has 
shown the spirit which is manifested in the documents he has 
placed before you. 

On the other hand, he regards me as having greatly injured 
him and as having been guilty of untruth. 

Such being the conditions, my proposal and desire is to 
regard all these matters as by-gones, and to agree lo forgwe and 
forget, and to do all in our power to work harmoniously with 


146 


all the members of the Princeton Faculty. I shall be very 
happy, indeed, if such a result can be attained, as I harbor no 
resentment, and desire only the best interests of the Seminary 
and of our Church. 
Yours very sincerely, 
(Signed) Charles R. Erdman.” 

Dr. Machen: May I ask what the date of that is? 

Dr. Thompson: December 23rd. 

Dr. Machen: I raise a point with regard to that matter. 
It does seem to me that contrary to what Dr. Erdman says, 
that concerns me in a most intimate way. It was in ac- 
cordance with the principle which was understood at the close 
of the last meeting that all such statements should be sent to 
the interested parties. I feel aggrieved at not having had 
placed in my possession this statement, and not having it at 
this moment. 

Dr. Thompson: If I am to blame, I apologize. It never 
occurred to me that it was my duty to do that. 

Dr. Machen: It never occurred to me to blame you. Dr. 
Erdman should have sent that to the interested parties. It 
contains a proposition and it should have been in my hands 
that I might deliberate upon it in the same way that he might 
deliberate on the statement I made. As far as it concerns me, 
the inquiry as to whether we had presented a statement of 
our grievances, and the manner in which we should resolve 
our differences, I desire to record the fact that that is what I 
have done in my “Additional Statement”’ and in very spécific 
terms I have stated in that on pages 19-20, the manner in 
which I think a resolution of our personal difference could be 
secured. I should like to call attention to that portion of my 
statement, and that I have presented this to Dr. Erdman. 

Dr. Thompson: I have a letter from Dr. Machen of 
December 18 in which he says “‘I am now submitting an 
additional statement.’ I understood this to mean that you 
were doing what you said you were doing. There are state- 
ments of the ground on which Dr. Machen is willing to have 
reconciliation. I had no misunderstanding myself. Dr. 
Erdman has submitted no documents. What we have gotten 
from him as his own correspondence. 

Dr. Allis:: I did not know that Dr. Erdman had made a 
communication. I think I had heard that Dr. Erdman had 
written, but I knew nothing of its content. I did not know 
that a question was to be asked of me. I was not aware until 
the letter was read a few moments ago that Dr. Erdman had 
made any such request. IJ wish to say in this matter that I 
do not think it is necessary for me to present it in writing, as 
Iam prepared to speak now with regard to the subject, but I 





147 


should like to reserve the right to make, if it may be wise, a 
somewhat fuller statement in writing later. 

I think it has been made clear, Mr. Chairman, by the dis- 
cussion in the faculty in this hearing, that Dr. Erdman’s 
letter as first sent to the Presbyterian referred to ‘‘editors’’ of 
the Presbyterian, to the members of the faculty who were also 
editors of the Presbyterian. That clearly included Dr. 
Machen. It did not include any other member of the faculty. 
The statement which appeared in the Presbyterian Advance, 
and which has been cited here, that Dr. Erdman thought there 
were two members of the faculty, but found there was only 
one. That would seem to narrow it down still more defi- 
nitely to Dr. Machen, consequently I do not feel that I was 
attacked by Dr. Erdman in that letter, and I did not reply. I 
debated with myself as to whether I should do so. I wish to 
state Mr. Chairman that I did not write that editorial. I did 
not approve of that editorial. I did not see it until it appeared 
in the Presbyterian in the usual way. I wish to say further, 
however, that as Dr. Erdman has intimated to you in his 
letter, I did object, I did protest against events which had 
taken place in Princeton, and on January 5, 1925, I attended a 
meeting of the Philadelphia Presbytery of which I am a mem- 
ber. I intentionally left the meeting of the Presbytery at the 
same time as Dr. Kennedy left, and I discussed with him the 
situation as I saw it in both its legal and its larger aspects. I 
told him very definitely and earnestly that it would be 
necessary to make the facts known. I do not recall having 
directly asked him to write that editorial, and as I have said 
to you, I never saw it until it appeared in print. When I left 
Dr. Kennedy, he seemed to me to be non-committal. I did 
not know what he was planning to do. I had no knowledge of 
it until it appeared in print. I am prepared to say that I 
think, while exception may be taken to the form of the 
editorial, and also the question of the wisdom of it, that it is 
correct in essential facts, and I am prepared to maintain that 
if it is desirable that I should do so. 

Dr. Luccock: Do you mean to give the impression that 
Dr. Kennedy got these facts from you? 

Dr. Allis: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that Dr. 
Kennedy got many facts from me. Just how many I do not 
know. The matter had been discussed to a considerable extent 
‘more or less in the public press, and I may say further that 
Dr. Kennedy stated to me that he was entirely responsible 
for that editorial, and that he was prepared to state it pub- 
licly if it should be desired. 

Dr. Stevenson: I did not understand that all papers 
would be in duplicate and circulated. Dr. Machen did that 


148 


in his own case, and he rather requested it. Afterwards it 
occurred to me in answer to some questions that had been 
raised, that I should present a statement before your Com- 
mittee in answer to Dr. Armstrong’s paper. 1 did this at the 
eleventh hour and sent a copy of it to you. 

Dr. Armstrong: I may not be in order, but it was my 
understanding that when the question was asked in respect to 
supplementary statements, provided they were in the hands 
of the secretary of the committee, that they should be put into 
the transcript. 

Dr. Machen: I presented my statement to Dr. Erdman 
and he did not present his statement to me. 


Dr. Whallon: I feel with Dr. Luccock, that this matter of | 


the relation between Dr. Machen and Dr. Erdman is very 
important, and it goes out from the Seminary, and is keenly 
felt by the alumni of the institution. There are those who 
are sympathetic with Dr. Erdman, and those with Dr. Machen 
and they are extremely anxious that this personal difference 
should be bridged over. We are very hopeful that that will 
be the case. As we have heard this matter, I gather this, that 
Dr. Machen has stated that he had never made any state- 
ments against Dr. Erdman until this coming out of the article 
in the Presbyterian. Then he replied. Dr. Erdman makes it 
clear that he did not intend that to apply to Dr. Machen. 
Dr. Machen thought it did apply to him, and that he has 
been injured. Dr. Allis in the transcript said that he had 
no information before that you did not hold Dr. Machen in 
mind in writing that article. These are matters of misunder- 
standing, and if they could be cleared up I think it would be 
very helpful in the life of the Seminary and in the feeling of 
the alumni of the institution. If the statement could be made, 
the grounds on which you could come to agreement with Dr. 
Machen, it would be a very valuable contribution to the 
committee. 

Dr. Erdman: That I should publish a statement that I 
did not believe Dr. Machen wrote the article? Would he 
withdraw his statement and his accusation? 

Dr. Machen: The publishing of a statement by Dr. Erd- 
man that he did not have me in mind, or still more, the mak- 
ing of such a statement in private would not benefit the 
situation in the slightest. I should resent the attack upon 
colleagues of mine just as much as when it was made against. 
me. I have tried to set forth the grounds, the way in which 
I think the settlement could be obtained, on pages 19 and 20 
of this Statement. I do bespeak some consideration for the 
very concrete statements I have made. I do not think we 
shall get anywhere in this matter without the consideration 





149 


and careful study of the facts in the case. I have tried to 
make my case as plain as I can. With regard to my state- 
ment about Dr. Erdman, I do desire to call the attention of 
the committee to the terms in which it is couched. I did feel 
under some provocation at the time, but I very carefully re- 
frained from any personal attack upon Dr. Erdman, and I 
would like to quote one statement in my letter at the time, in 
my reply to the statement in the Advance, on page 29 of my 
documents. I do submit that that high personal esteem has 
not been impaired. After the attack is made I still speak of 
him personally in these terms. I do maintain that I have not 
engaged at all in the kind of derogatory discussion of Dr. 
Erdman’s motives and Christian character which he engaged 
in his letter. This is set forth in my statement. I have tried 
to point out the differences between my statement with 
regard to Dr. Erdman and his statement with regard to me. 
I have tried to make my case in writing and I have tried to 
correct supplementary misunderstanding. But my case that 
I am making with regard to this matter 1s found in my two 
statements and I am not trying to repeat it here at all. 

Dr. Luccock: One of my difficulties is in understanding 
your point of view, when in the same breath you say you hold 
him in personal esteem and honor him, and then say he-is 
indifferent and one who makes common cause with the enemy, 
and yet maintain that you have not said anything reflecting 
upon him personally. I cannot get that. 

Dr. Machen: I do not apply these terms to which you 
refer, to him personally. A great many men hold that 
Christianity is primarily a life, and that doctrinal indifference 
can go along with loyalty to Christ. That position of doc- 
trinal indifference is held in a far more thorough going way 
by high minded men for him I have high personal esteem. 
I do not question Dr. Erdman’s devotion to the doctrines ot 
the Christian Church. I have limited it with regard to 
ecclesiastical matters. I have defined it in a way which 
prevents it from being offensive. There is no impugnment 
of his own personal devotion to Christ. There is an impugn- 
ment of his ecclesiastical policy and my difference in principle 
is extremely important, in my judgment. 

Dr. Luccock: Do you think one can be personally de- 
voted to Christ and make common cause with the enemy? 

Dr. Machen: Because he may be ignorant of the fact that 
the enemy is an enemy. J 

Dr. Thompson: I think I committed myself to hear Dr. 
Smith and Dr. Loetscher. 


os +k ok ES *k 


150 


Verbal Statement of Professor J. Ritchie Smith 


I should like to state in the very beginning of my few 
words, that I have no complaint to make against any of 
the brethren in the faculty. I have no personal grievance. 
My relations have been and continue to be of the most 
cordial and pleasant sort. So that what I have to say will 
be entirely impersonal. I shall not undertake to enter 
in any degree into the mass of personalities of which we have 
heard so much. JI think the matter has been quite fully 
discussed and all sides have been presented, and it is not 
becoming in me to express any judgment upon matters of 
personal difference between my brethren of the faculty. So 
that the few words I have to say simply relate to two points 
of difference that would perhaps distinguish me from the 
majority of the faculty. I greatly regret the use of the terms 
“majority” and ‘“‘minority’ and am sorry that any such 
division has taken place. Since it has taken place, it is 
necessary to indicate my own personal standpoint, the points 
of difference as they lay in my own mind in the matter of 
the witness bearing of the Church. 


I conceive the witness bearing of the Church to be one of 
its greatest duties and one of its highest privileges, and I 
yield to no man in the importance of the Church and seminary 
witnessing to the truth. There is the way of controversy, and 
there is the way of a direct and constructive presentation of 
the truth. Each of these methods has a distinct place and 
value, and IJ shall not undertake to determine the relative 
place of them in the Seminary or in the Church. There are 
times and places when controversy is required. There are 
times and places when the more direct and immediate presen- 
tation of the truth is more impressing and more effective, and 
it is largely, moreover, a matter of temperament and dis- 
position. Some men by nature incline to one method and 
some men incline by nature to the other, and every man 
ought to be able to choose for himself which he can use most 
effectively, and it is not fair to conclude that a man who uses 
either method is indifference to the witness bearing of the 
Church, if he bears his witness in one form or another. 


For myself, I have always found it to be more suited to my 
disposition and temper, and more effective, to deal with truth 
not in the controversial way but in the way of a direct presen- 
tation ef the truth and leaving the truth to make its own 
application and appeal. I have no quarrel with any man who 
has a different way, and I think there are many men to whom 
the controversial method is more congenial and more effective. 
Hither method is entirely legitimate and it ought to be left 





151 


to every man to choose which method he prefers, without any 
risk of incurring any censure in the matter of bearing: witness. 

The second point of difference which may exist between 
me and my brethren in the faculty, is in our attitude to'the 
President of the Seminary. I conceive the President of the 
Seminary as having labored very hard in the work given him 
here and has labored efficiently, and is entitled to support. 
Now the ground on which support is refused him by some of 
my brethren is that he favors an inclusive policy in the 
seminary. Now whether that is a good thing or a bad depends 
entirely upon the definition of the term. There is an inclusive 
policy which I should deprecate as much as any man. There 
is an inclusive policy which I favor and it may be well to 
say a few words regarding that. 

Historically and legally, there is no question that the 
- seminary represents the whole Church. It was founded by 
the Church; it is the creature of the Church, the organ and 
agent of the Church, deriving all its authority from the 
Church, and as the Plan of the Seminary states, the General 
Assembly is the fountain of its power and the General Assem- 
bly has very high authority over the seminary in all aspects, 
so that historically and legally, there can be no question that 
the seminary is the creature of the Church, is subject to the 
Church. It cannot be superior to the Church, nor separate 
from the Church, nor independent of the Church. It cannot 
be detached from the Church, and I should deprecate very 
cordially any policy of isolation from the Church. That is 
merely the historical and legal side of the matter, which is, 
I think, the less important side. 


When we come to the doctrinal aspects of the case, the 
matter is not quite so simple as on the historical side, and yet 
I think there is a very real sense in which an inclusive policy 
is perfectly legitimate in the case of the Seminary. I would 
mean by that an inclusion simply of those elements in the 
Church which are true to our Standards in their purity and 
integrity. I would be very far from favoring any departure 
in any direction from the testimony of our Standards, or any 
weakening of our allegiance to them. I think there is no 
question about that. There is no question that there 1s 
anybody in this faculty with a leaning toward doctrinal 
unsoundness in any respect. For myself, for fifty years I 
have been preaching the old doctrines I learned here in 
Princeton Seminary. I have taught them habitually and I 
continue to teach them. They are good to live by, and preach, 
and to die by when the time comes, and I have no question 
that this system of doctrine which we hold here is the true 
system as taught in the Word of God. No question about that 
whatever. 


152 


But we have no distinctive theology in Princeton. That 
has been taught from the time the Seminary was instituted. 
We have no theology of our own. There is no “Princeton”’ 
theology as distinct from any other form of theology of course. 
What we are teaching is Calvinism, or the Reformed system 
of faith in its purity and integrity, and I conceive that any- 
body in the Church, or any element in the Church which is 
true to the system of doctrine that is taught in our Confession, 
may properly be represented by Princeton Seminary. There 
are differences of doctrine on immaterial points in the Board 
of Directors, in the Seminary faculty. For example, we have 
in the Seminary faculty, or have had in recent years, all the 
varied aspects of doctrine with regard to the personal return 
of Christ, premillenial, postmillenial and amillenial, and | 
don’t think the Seminary has suffered from these varied forms 
within the limits of the Confession of Faith. Variety of 
opinion leads to the enrichment of doctrine and not to the 
detriment of doctrine; our system 1s not impaired but strength- 
ened by these minor differences which are all the more effective 
testimony to the truth of the system in which all who hold 
these views unite. Some of my brethren do not believe as I 
do. I do not question their right to differ from me. I think 
these are matters which every individual man must settle for 
himself, and within the limits of our Constitution; these are 
only illustrations of the differences that may properly be 
found to exist, and which I say tend.rather to the enrichment 
than to the detriment of our form of faith. 


I have been brought up at the feet of old Dr. Hodge, whom 
I revere as a noble Christian man, as a great teacher, as the 
very exemplar of orthodoxy, and I teach the system that Dr. 
Hodge taught in all its simplicity; but there are certain 
particulars in which I have differed from Dr. Hodge, on 
which I teach differently from him, several minor points that 
I could mention. J do not think that the fact that I have 
differed from Dr. Hodge on some minor points in any degree 
affects my’ loyalty to the Confession of Faith or to the in- 
tegrity of the system in which I was brought up. And I use 
this simply as an illustration of the fact which seems to me 
obvious enough, that within the limits of our Confession, and 
in the ranks of those who hold to that system in its purity 
and integrity, there are differences of opinion upon minor 
points. If we are turning to points of more importance, if 
we are in any degree overstepping the bounds of the Con- 
fession, if we are transgressing the limits of the Reformed 
theology, I should immediately say the case is absolutely 
different, and I would not be willing for one moment to have 
the seminary forsake its historical position as the defender of 





153 


the Calvinistic or Reformed system in its integrity and purity. 
I would not have any system of inclusion, which included 
elements hostile to that system, and the only inclusion I 
would recognize is the inclusion of all those who hold that 
system pure and entire, and yet cherish within the limits, 
certain minor differences of opinion. I differ from my brethren 
in this respect, that it seems to me that is about the position 
of the President of the Seminary. If this is not his position, 
and if he is inclined to bring into the Seminary or into the’ 
representation of the Seminary in any degree, what we call the 
liberal or modernistic elements, I should oppose him as 
heartily as any of my brethren, but because I do not think 
he holds that position, because I have satisfied myself in 
public utterance and in private utterance, that his attitude is 
that which I have been indicating, I have been inclined to 
support him, and to believe that the inclusion he desires is 
not one which would affect the integrity of our system in any 
_degree. That is a difference of opinion between me and the 
brethren. It is not a difference of principle as I conceive it, 
because if I saw the matter as they do, I should take the same 
position they do. Because I do not view his attitude in the 
same light, I take this difference of position. I feel the 
inclusion which he stands for, and which I favor, is simply an 
inclusion of the kind which I suggest is within the limits of 
the Standards of our Church. This is all I have to say upon 
these matters. I want to say in conclusion, that I see no 
reason, after all I have heard, apart from personal considera- 
tions, I see no reason why we brethren cannot all work to- 
gether, pray together, serve together in the interests of the 
Seminary, of the Presbyterian Church, and of the Kingdom 
of God. 


* *K k ok 5 


Verbal Statement of Professor Frederick W. Loetscher 


I feel like introducing my statement with the remark 
that too much is being said and written and printed on 
this whole matter. Much may be said on both sides. Whether 
we are advancing any good cause by the kind of debate 
we had here this afternoon or not, I do not pretend to say. 
My approach to the few remarks that I wish to make will 
be along the historical line. I think our troubles became 
open here at the time of the organization of the Evangelical 
League, and in connection with the change in the position 
of the student adviser. I understand Dr. Wilson has said 
just what I should like to say; in my humble judgment 
any member of the faculty is thoroughly competent to perform 
the duties of that position, but the trouble that has arisen 


154 


has been due in my humble judgment to this fact, that the 
faculty has been seriously deficient in Christian courtesy and 
charity to one of its members. About their legal right to do 
what they did, I have no question whatever. When this 
League arose there came to be a very wonderful zeal in behalf 
of doctrine, not only on the part of some students in the 
seminary, but on the part of some members of the faculty. 
It was quite an unwonted interest that was manifested all of 
a sudden in devotion to pure doctrine. My position in the 
matter, the moment the question came before the faculty was 
determined by an experience that I had as an acting-lecturer 
in the New Brunswick Seminary. My first acquaintance 
with this proposed league was in connection with the fact that 
the student body in that seminary—their smallness in num- 
bers does not make the principle at stake any different—were 
to be passed by in the selection of official candidates for 
membership in the League, on the ground, as I think it was 
mentioned at that time, that some of the students who had 
gathered at some conference, after some of our men had made 
remarks that were, whether serious or jocose, effected to 
undermine the confidence of our students in the theological 
fitness of the brethren at New Brunswick to be members of 
the League. It appears that this particular Seminary was to 
be black-listed because some of its professors were under 
suspicion. ‘That led me to think that the best kind of advisor 
whom the faculty might appoint to supervise the inception 
of this League was one who, up to that time at any rate, was 
not conspicuously zealous for the League, and it was known 
that Dr. Erdman was not. That would have been sufficient 
to determine my vote in the matter. I refer to this because 
that is the historical origin of the phrasing of majority and 
minority. That we should be labeled as ‘majority’ or 
‘minority’? members with regard to perfectly colorless com- 
mittee appointments, only illustrates the evil that is con- 
nected with this habit of fastening labels on members in the 
Church, or in bodies like this faculty. 


The more important consideration I think that was in the 
minds of a number of us was that we felt, that inasmuch as 
this came as a proposal from the student body, it was all the 
more obligatory upon the faculty to stand by that member 
of the body who for 16 or 18 years had performed the duties 
of this office with conspicuous fidelity and success. I did not 
know what now appears to be the truth, that a small group 
of students, Mr. Schofield in particular if his statement is to 
be accepted at its full value, was responsible for the action of 
the student cabinet in having Dr. Erdman set aside, and 
having the recommendation come before the faculty, that the 


155 


faculty should appoint another student adviser. If that is 
true, and the whole truth, it all the more confirms me and I 
judge some other members of the faculty, in the position that 
Christian courtesy was the sufficient principle that ought to 
have controlled our action in these circumstances; that we 
should have said to this body of students, “‘We commend your 
zeal, but we do not wish publicly to reflect upon the theo- 
logical standing of one of our honored members.’ The faculty 
did not do so. They have stated in the majority report sub- 
mitted to you, that in their judgment, Dr. Erdman lacked the 
qualifications that the adviser ought to have in this alleged 
crisis in the affairs of the student body. Of course it is 
difficult to tell a historical story straight. Dr. Machen refers 
in his book to the year 1924-25 as being one of the notable 
spiritual advances in the Seminary, and I don’t doubt that 
that is perfectly true for a considerable number of the students 
who were keenly interested in this League, who looked into 
the theological questions involved in the matters before the 
Church, in the public debates, who were engaged in private 
and public prayer. But, as I say, there are other aspects of 
the case. 

When that particular class left this campus, one of them 
came to see me, and I casually asked him what he thought of 
the League. He said, ‘‘Dr. Loetscher, I think that League is 
the work of the devil.’ And he checked himself, and said, 
“I should not have said it that way.’ But he had been living 
in this Seminary for three years on terms of pleasant Christian 
intercourse with his brethren, when, after the organization of 
this League, whatever lies back of the fact, his class mates 
and he could no longer greet each other on the campus, could 
not walk together any more. How much of that there was, 
I don’t know, but I do know also that relatives, having 
interest in the future seminary connections of members of the 
family, came to me as I don’t doubt they have come to the 
rest of us, inquiring about the religious conditions of this 
institution as reflected in this League. And there were those 
who told me that they could not, under the circumstances, 
think of sending anyone to this Seminary for whose religious 
welfare they were particularly solicitous. There is truth on 
both sides of this thing, but the point I make is that the 
faculty was most unwise and lacking in Christian courtesy, - 
when they took the particular action in the behest of a group 
of students in publicly humiliating one of their members by 
asking someone else to take the duties of that office after the 
many years in, which he had efficiently performed it. 


I deprecate the labeling of members of the Faculty. It 1s 
a matter of convenience, probably, but personally, I wish it 


156 


understood before this Committee and before my brethren, 
who in fact are familiar enough with those aspects of the case, 
I refuse to be a partisan in all these questions. I try to weigh 
them as they rise before us. I am very sorry for some of the 
public acts of my colleagues Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman. 
I cannot undertake to defend some of their statements in 
which they have, I think, been deficient in Christian courtesy, 
and reflected upon the actions of their brethren. I think the 
great trouble with us here is that we are keen for truth, but 
we are lacking the insight of true spiritual wisdom, Christian 
charity and love. There is a crisis in the Church, but I think 
we were particularly full of zeal for the cause of God, we ought 
to be specially careful that we level our shafts at the enemy, 
and not at those who by every consideration of Christian 
charity ought to be regarded as our friends and our allies. 

There is this rather remarkable fact that underlies our 
situation here. Every member of the minority group, so 
called, have been or is a pastor of a church. All the majority 
party, not one member has ever been a pastor, except one, 
Dr. Greene, and that was 30 years ago. 

Now it seems to me that there is something ultimate there 
that underlies our varying approaches to the problems before 
the Church. I think there are some members of the majority 
party, so-called, who cannot understand what Dr. Smith has 
just told them, and yet the Church is full of men of just that 
type, men who are convinced that they can do their best - 
work by never referring to the controversy in the Church at 
all. I was the guest of such a man some months ago. I 
think he had been twenty-five years in his pulpit, the son of 
a distinguished Presbyterian minister. I took occasion to ask 
him at the time of our excitement here about the student 
League, what he does, as a matter of fact, in his own adminis- 
tration. He said, I never mention the word modernism, or 
conservatism, or fundamentalism. I just go on preaching the 
Gospel today, the same Gospel that I learned in the Seminary, 
and that I have preached ever since I have left the Seminary. 
That man has no gift for polemics. I think there are men to 
whom we owe a debt of gratitude because they are not of 
that type, but we have been inclined in the faculty to discount 
the Christian character, at least the theological correctness, 
of men who, as the phrase once had it, are not on fire for the 
Gospel, by which I judge it was meant that a man cannot be 
a true and effective preacher of the Gospel unless he is a 
polemic preacher. I judge there is a sense in which that is 
true, true as set over against that which is opposed to it. 
But I think we all feel, at any rate at least those who have 
been in the pastorate, that it is possible for a man to do his 





157 


very best work by doing it constructively with a positive 
presentation of the truth, and by steering clear, if he has no 
gift for polemic preaching, of that kind of belligeraney which 
some identify with true orthodoxy. 

The question, therefore, that has divided us as I see it, is 
this. How far may we go in the exercise of Christian charity 
toward those who differ with us in regard to the attitude that 
we ought to take toward matters in public debate? How far 
does my loyalty to conviction prevent me from exercising 
Christian charity toward my brother in the ministry? We 
differ along that line. I suppose the members of this minority 
group differ as to the way in which they decide questions of 
that kind on their merits. Personally I feel, for example, 
that we ought to be much more particular when we select a 
Stone Lecturer, who comes as an official teacher for a period 
of a week, than I think we need to be with regard to the 
simple Sunday morning ministrations in Miller Chapel. 
There are many men in the Church whom I should like to 
hear preach, and who I think would give us acceptable minis- 
tration, even though I should know in advance that they and 
I would differ as to what. the attitude of a minister ought to 
be toward some of the things in public debate. 


Much has been said about having liberty for the majority 
party. I think we all alike need to safeguard the principle of 
Christian liberty, and so far as I know my own relationships 
to these matters in regard to which there has been divergence 
of opinion, it has just been along that line. But I think some 
of us feel our need to be a little more elastic, charitable, 
generous, more flexible in the administration of our work. 
I think the Committee well knows, that while, as has been 
said, the Seminary owes no member of the Presbyterian 
ministry an invitation to come to preach to us, we have been 
exceedingly rigorous and narrow in our interpretation of the 
question: ‘‘Who are worthy and eligible men to conduct this 
hour’s service on Sunday morning?’ There are some whom 
we would not care to hear, perhaps because they are not good 
preachers. There are other men of distinction in the Church, 
whom I should like to hear because I like to get into personal! 
touch with them. I like to judge by my own ears as to the 
kind of message which they are giving to their brethren in 
the Church at large, and I feel that no great harm is done if 
_ we should have a little more charity in our make-up than we 
seem to have had in recent years. As for the bad names that 
have been used with regard to some of us, I take more or less 
of comfort from the fact that much the same kind of thing 
was said about Alexander Hodge and Samuel Miller in their 
day, because they refused to be stampeded by the theological 


158 


panic of the time. We have been suffering from that. We 
have had a theological panic. There is a crisis in the Church, 
but I think it behooves us all the more to be careful in the 
selection of our targets when we come to express our judg- 
ments as to brethren in the Christian ministry, and ‘par- 
ticularly in the Presbyterian ministry. J think we need to 
administer the affairs of the seminary as an institution of the 
general Church, with a larger degree of charity toward those 
with whom we may differ, not on matters of fundamental 
doctrine, but on matters pertaining to the politics of the 
Church, if I may so say in the presence of so many ex-moder- 
ators and future moderators. The great question is not who 
is chosen annually in the Assembly. Dr. Macartney and 
Dr. Erdman are both admirable Christian ministers. While 
there may be a special fitness in selecting one as against 
another, I do not think we ought to indulge in the uncharit- 
able and unChristian manifestations that we have had in this 
body, because we have had divergence of opinion on such 
practical matters of church polity. 


* * * * * 


Further Verbal Statement of President Stevenson 


Dr. Stevenson: Statements made contradict mine and 
ehallenge proof. If you desire any testimony from me in 
answer to allegations that have been made, I am willing to 
make some statement. 

Dr. Thompson: I don’t know of any mis-statements re- 
garding you. I don’t know of any statement that impugns 
the integrity of another man’s statement. If there is such, 
bring it to our attention. 

Dr. Stevenson: In speaking, I was not wishing to intimate 
that there is anything personal whatsoever. I can say in all 
sincerity that my attitude toward my brethren is most 
friendly and I cherish no personal grievance. I have no 
feeling of having been personally slighted, but matters have 
been alluded to that have pertained to questions of adminis- 
tration, and if you will permit me I would like to answer two 
or three statements made this afternoon. 

The first was by Dr. Machen with regard to the statement 
I made as to his position regarding Dr. Davis. I have here 
all the correspondence on that matter. I have here a tele- 
eram sent by Dr. Macartney in respect to the action of a 
Committee appointed by the Directors consisting of Dr. 
Crane and myself to wait on Dr. Davis to take the work in 
systematic theology during the temporary illness of Dr. 
Hodge. This telegram reads: ‘Have just talked with Laird 
and I feel critical situation in theology requires further de- 


i i i a i 


159 


liberation.”’ He advises that the students be advised that we 
have the matter under deliberation. That telegram came 
when Dr. Crane was here. Dr. Crane and I had met to take 
this matter up as per instructions of the Board of Directors. 
It had been decided that Dr. Davis should be invited. This 
telegram intercepted the invitation. Dr. Crane received the 
telegram in my room. We asked what we should do about 
it. I suggested we should eall Dr. Laird. Dr. Crane called 
Dr. Laird only to be informed that after the Committee had 
met and had come to a decision, Dr. Machen had seen Dr. 
Macartney and had persuaded him that it would be in the 
interests of liberalizing the seminary if Dr. Davis should be 
invited to take up that work. They talked it over on the 
telephone, and these two men rather reached the conclusion 
they would go ahead. At any rate Dr. Crane took the re- 
sponsibility to going with me and inviting Dr. Davis to render 
that service. 

After we had invited him, Dr. Machen refers to commotion 
on the campus. This agitation was reported to me by Dr. 
W. 5S. Plumer Bryan who was a visitor on the campus. He 
came to my house in great concern and said that things were 
in a most serious situation and it had grown out of this action 
of mine, supposedly mine, in inviting Dr. Davis to take up 
this work. I called a meeting of the faculty. We met here. 
I explained the steps that had been taken and why they had 
been taken. Dr. Davis sat in that corner and after I had 
made the statement, he rose and said that he had been 
invited by the Committee, but that if there was opposition 
on the part of the faculty, he did not wish to accept, and he 
left it to the members of the faculty as to whether he should 
do this, and he retired. After he retired, I went round and 
asked whether they were agreeable. It was then that every 
member of the faculty, as I recall it, consented with the 
exception of Dr. Machen. It was that to which I alluded. 
That did create a situation with regard to Dr. Davis. That 
he was grieved was reported to me by his daughter after his 
death, that he was so upset by these differences in the faculty, 
that he did not believe he could live through it. His own 
family think that his health was seriously affected, and the 
one thing that was most grievous to him was the fact that 
he was conscious in teaching his students, that they had been 
warned not to accept his teachings. 

I was challenged for having stated that Dr. Machen had 
remarked concerning certain men that they were not Chris- 
tians. I do not make it a point to spy on my brethren, but 
occasionally when something impresses me, I make a record 
of it, and I simply read this for what it is worth, as there may 


160 


be members of the faculty who were present at the time. 
“Nov. 21, 1925. In discussing the schedule of preachers, 
containing the name of a Southern Methodist, Dr. Loetscher 
inquired, ‘How can we invite a man who is not a Calvinist, 
when members of the faculty object to Presbyterian ministers 
who were recommended by the Committee?’ To this Dr. 
Machen made objection. ‘My objection to them (and the 
men were Watson, Covert, Vance) was not because they are 
not Calvinists, but because they are not Christians.’”’ That 
s my clear recollection of the statements made at the time. 

Another matter is my objection to the appointment of 
committees. And in connection with that the statement, as I 
recall it, by Dr. Machen was to the effect that I had as 
President, had the authority to appoint committees for a long 
time, and the intimation was that repeatedly I had shown a 
disregard for the majority of the faculty. I would like Dr. 
Machen to indicate any committee that I have appointed in 
which that has taken place. On the contrary, the very com- 
mittee that made these changes in nominations, was a 
committee which I appointed, consisting of two members of 
the so called majority, and one of the minority. I wish to be 
corrected. I am not aware of anything that is regarded as an 
abuse of power. There had been very few committee appoint- 
ments made. It was difficult to get men to take appointment 
on committees. 

The other thing, the League. If it were voluntary, without 
pressure being brought on other students, ‘If you don’t sign 
it you will be regarded as one not believing in the Gospel, and 
therefore put off by yourself,’ if it were not drawing a dividing 
line, particularly at the beginning of their course, I would join 
with them. I have said that again and again. If you make 
this a voluntary organization, if you don’t press campaigns and 
bring all sorts of forces to bear on incoming students as soon 
as they arrive on the campus and represent it to them that 
they will not be regarded as evangelical. I suppose my 
experience was with the Student Volunteer movement, which 
organized volunteer bands, and went on that basis. That 
made a dividing line in nearly every institution in the country 
and I cite that as an illustration of what would happen if 
that’ sort of policy was conducted, as I believe it has been. 
It has been even conceded by the majority, that it is literally 
true that in this institution there are two mutually exclusive 
types of Christianity, and it was their business in testifying to 
draw the line. 

I cannot recall all the objections that were made to state- 
ments of mine as Dr. Armstrong read them, and with a certain 
tone of voice. I thought if I had meant this in the same way, 





161 


even as he mentioned scornful attitude, I certainly owe all the 
faculty an apology, because that was not my spirit. I was try- 
ing to face honestly a situation here, that I think you agree 
is somewhat baffling and difficult perhaps just to diagnose, 
and when he repeated the words “suspicion and distrust and 
opposition,’ I feel I am not cherishing personal resentment. 
I feel that is the way I have been treated. I have been under 
suspicion, that I do not have the confidence of my brethren. 
that I have. to reckon with their opposition. I ask, why is 
this? Wherein have I been so guilty that these men feel 
justified in organizing a majority to carry on, as has been car- 
ried on here, and have that kind of control, instead of trying 
to work together as a united faculty in order that we may be 
of one accord and one mind? | 
Allusion has been made, and I don’t need to comment . 
further on what has been stated about an inclusive Church. 
I think Dr. Smith has described what I have in mind very 
accurately. If I ever meant the church would recognize 
heresy, and men who do not believe in the authority of the 
Scriptures, who do not accept the Virgin Birth, if I have ever 
meant any intimation of that kind, I would make public 
_apology, because I do not hold to anything of that kind. The 
matters that have come up have affected the attitude of the 
Seminary towards the Church, towards the Assembly, towards 
the Boards and Agencies of the Church, and in order that my 
position might be made clear I went to the trouble of writing 
out in full a document, a copy of which you have, which | 
submitted to the Board of Directors. The Chairman of the 
Committee of the Board of Directors asked me to make copies 
for his Committee of Seven, but not to let it go abroad. It 
might be a good thing to give my brethren a copy of it. I 
went to particular trouble to indicate my views as to the way 
we should get at this trouble in the Church which we are 
talking about. I deplore with them, modernism and all that 
is involved. I think Dr. Machen will bear me witness that I 
have gloried in his testimony and have commended his 
testimony on more occasions than one. When his book- 
“Christianity and Liberalism’’ was written, I commended it 
from a theological point of view. I deplored statements he 
made that 50 cents out of every dollar went to the propaga- 
tion of error. I could not consent to that, and in his latest 
book wherein he speaks of the fact that in some Boards it has 
been considered bad form to mention the Cross of Christ. | 
could not consent to that, because I don’t believe he has 
proved it, so far as the Board I am identified with. I don't 
think it could be proved. There is a Presbyterian way to go 
about and try to to settle it, as there is a Presbyterlan way In 


162 


this faculty that has been indicated in what you have stated. 
If the members of the faculty think any brother in the 
faculty does something he cannot approve of, ought to go and 
tell him frankly, and if he cannot convince him that he is 
wrong, he has a right of appeal to the Board of Directors, and 
have it rectified. And with all due respect to Dr. Wilson, he 
did not come to me, he went to the Board of Directors, and 
the Board brought it up against me, as to why I had invited 
Dr. Lueas to speak, and after I had answered the Board of 
Directors, and told them why I had invited Dr. Lucas, Presi- 
dent of Forman College, and they approved of it, Dr. Wilson 
still holds that against me, and makes complaint in the face of 
the action of the Board of Directors. It seems to me we have 
to take this into account. 

We have a plan. Is that plan in its definitions, and in the 
relationships involved, adequate? I came here as President, 
appointed by the Board of Directors, and I had one idea as to 
what it meant to be President, but I found the faculty had 
another idea as to the Presidency. It was little different from 
the chairmanship of the faculty, and in fact the President is 
nothing more than, 1t was spoken of as primus inter pares. 

Dr. Thompson: It seems to me it is wnus inter pares. 

Dr. Stevenson: But you take the situation. He is the 
representative before the Church. If that means anything he 
is to represent the seminary to the Church, and the Church to 
the seminary, and have some part in inviting men here. It all 
now goes over to Dr. Wilson. He is the one that now has a 
power the president does not have. Dr. Wilson, and we 
trust him, Dr. Wilson in consultation with the students can 
invite anybody here, but I cannot. I am not permitted to 
invite anybody to come here without bringing it to the 
faculty. The same thing is true of Dr. Erdman in his depart- 
ment of practical theology. It seems to me that there is a 
point, where, contrary to the Plan of this Seminary, which 
makes it very specific that it is the Board of Directors that 
supervises the instruction in a particular department, that 
needs to be reported to when there are any charges made, 
that my good brethren are sitting in judgment on the faculty 
as to what they do, and are condemning them for certain 
things they do, when it is the Board of Directors that is to 
decide that. Dr. Armstrong has alluded to the action of the 
Board of Directors taken a year ago, October 13, 1925. It is 
true that I as President requested the appointment of a Com- 
mittee but it is not true that the intimation in doing so was 
that I brought any complaint against the majority of the 
Faculty. Most of that paper is taken up with a definition of 
my own position, and as to whether it met with the approval 





163 


of the Board of Directors. If the matter of the League be 
regarded as a matter reflecting upon the faculty, it might be 
considered so. The rest was the matter which was agitating 
the seminary at the time. Newspaper reporters were here 
constantly. I gave out no information to anyone of them, nor 
did I have an interview published. It was among the alumni 
and it was on the campus, and on that basis I requested a 
‘committee be appointed. I did use the language to which Dr. 
Armstrong referred, and the Board incorporated that in the 
appointment of its Committee. At that time some of these 
matters of which so much has been made, were brought to 
the attention of the Board, particularly this Plan of Union. I 
called attention to it, and I printed an article in the Presby- 
terlan. Certainly that Committee was advised as to that 
particular thing, and if my relation to it and Dr. Erdman’s 
was reprehensible, as it is represented, then certainly that 
Board of Directors was negligent of a great trust, when having 
it before them, it brought out the decision to which Dr. Arm- 
strong has alluded, and certainly did not take the action that - 
he has alluded to, that any of us by inference, because we 
were related to that, we were not loyal to the Reformed faith, 

Dr. Stevenson: The same thing holds with regard to the 
Church. There are many things done by Boards and General 
Assemblies, that I do not approve of. I did not approve of the 
union with the Cumberland body, and opposed it in the 
Assembly and in New York Presbytery. Strange to say New 
York voted against the union. It came up in a constitutional 
way, and was debated, and there was nothing for me to do 
but acquiesce and accept.it as the judgment of the Church. 
I have to adopt myself to that. Iam amember of the Board of 
Foreign Missions. Dr. Erdman would bear me out in this, 
that again and again, accusation has been brought against 
that Board as not being sound, of sending men out who are 
not sound in the faith. Now one may have his private 
opinion about that, but that matter was before the Assembly 
on several occasions, and a special committee was appointed 
three or four years ago to investigate that matter, which 
came to the conclusion that there was no truth in it or basis 
infact. Inthe Assembly when Dr. Macartney was Moderator, 
in 1924, when Dr. Wilson was a member of the Foreign 
Missions Committee, at that time there was insinuation that 
the Board of Foreign Missions was not sound, and there were 
criticisms made, but there under the leadership of Dr. Mac- 
Lennan, there was as great a statement made as to the 
character of the work of Foreign Missions as could be made. 
It seems to me that in the administration of an institution 
like this, that is a principle to go on, and to assume that that 


164 


has come up constitutionally, and we can take it as a working 
basis. 

I have found this difficulty, that there is suspicion here. 
If Dr. Wilson will permit me, I would like to quote from him a 
statement which was made this autumn—he will correct me, 
in which he said that the student cabinet had decided to 
invite a representative of the Board of National Missions, 
and the Board of Foreign Missions, and the Board of Educa- 
tion here to speak on a Tuesday night. He spoke with trepi- 
dation about bringing it up. He didn’t want to cause a blow 
up. He said, I will warn them before they come here as to 
what they will say. It is difficult to invite them to come 
on a Tuesday evening—and that is different from a Sunday 
morning. That makes it very difficult in the administration 
of an institution, which is to train young men to serve the 
Boards and Agencies of the Presbyterian Church, because if 
the secretaries of these Boards are of such a character that 
they may not be brought to the institution without being 
warned as to what they are going to talk about, and having 
their remarks confined to specific subjects, there is some 
justification for the language, which may have been too 
strong, of suspicion and of distrust and more or less antago- 
nism against the Presbyterian Church as at present organized. 
That has been intimated here today in a statement about the 
last General Assembly and the Commission of Fifteen. That 
was properly appointed; it has done its work, and the mind 
of the Church is pleased with that work. It seems to me that 
if that is brought forward in a constitutional way, and is 
decided by the General Assembly, that we as an agency of 
the Presbyterian Church, are bound, officially at least, to be 
in line with it, even though our personal views may differ, and 
not be antagonistic over that Committee, or claiming that 
the situation is different, and we cannot abide by its decisions, 
and carry on any kind of agitation that would continue the 
unrest in the Church. For the first time, in 1924, I was 
called a ‘“‘wretched liberal.’”’ There is a part of the Plan that 
is seldom alluded to. I think it is the 6th Article, at any 
rate it is the article framed by our fathers, which has re- 
mained largely the same for more than a century, on devo- 
tion and the improvement of practical piety. It is the most 
searching part of the whole constitution. I am distressed 
generally about the situation in theological seminaries. I 
was told this last week that in one of our other seminaries con- 
ditions are just as bad as they are here, only they have sense 
to keep quiet. I probably come under it myself. I read some 
time ago that which I take to heart and I copied it from a 
statement made by the editor of the British Weekly on the 





165 


perils of theological seminaries, who, in his Life and Letters 
of Wm. Robertson Micol, said ‘““No one had a keener sense 
of the demoniacal streak in each of us, to stop our work and 
talk about others. I have known many professors in my 
‘ time, and some very intimately, and I am speaking quite 
seriously when I say, it is the most demoralizing business as 
carried on in Scotland. The vast holiday, the majestic 
temper induced by the work . . . the petty cliques among 
the professors, gradually corrupt the finest and noblest 
natures, and I have never known a man made a professor 
without him being deteriorated.” 

Dr. Thompson: There are certain unfinished matters we 
thought we should like to talk over with you a little while 
this morning. I think we ought to say we have a number of 
recipes offered to us for the better adjustment of affairs here. 
We have not adopted any of them. Up to this morning the 
Committee is not committed to any of these things, but it 
might be well to mention them in passing as a prelude to our 
morning exercises. We have found some difference of opinion 
here and there of course in the Trustees, the Directors, and 
others. In the meeting with the Directors we found what we 
may think of as a long standing difference between the 
Trustees and the Directors. “De don’t see how we are going to 
resolve that point of view. It comes on about the word 
“approval.” The Trustees are a close corporation, self per- 
petuating, and while they are probably the result of the 
Assembly’s action, in a sense it may be said that the Assembly 
created them, the State of New Jersey legally created them. 
I think this Board of Trustees feels it is not a rubber stamp 
affair, and it has a function to perform, and a right to express 
its own opinion in regard to proposals of the Board of Direc- 
tors. The Directors are there to direct the theological 
seminary, and I think they have rather adequate and complete 
and definite authority in the matters pertaining to the direc- 
tion and control of the Seminary. You can readily see how 
there would be divergence of opinion. The methods they have 
undertaken to bring about harmony of relation—they used 
the interlocking method. Dr. Laird is the sole surviving 
interlocker. It was well conceived, in a good spirit, probably 
wise in purpose, but it didn’t accomplish the thing they 
thought it would accomplish. The Board of Directors are 
more or less a rotating body in the sense that the Assembly 
can always change a certain number. They are probably 
more or less permanent. My classmate, Dr. Patterson, was 
here until his death. The Trustees are a pretty continuous 
body. I suppose it is desirable and was the intention to have 
it so, but the technical right is there to change, but the 


166 


failure to use authority occasionally causes it to fall into dis- 
use, and these brethren have a sort of long standing difference 
of opinion until they have learned to wink the other eye when 
somebody is talking to them. I don’t know how deep it is, 
but it is obvious there is some cleavage there. I don’t think 
that is a matter we need to quarrel about, nor to find a 
source of division. It is a matter that can be adjusted, so that 
we can go on with some degree of peaceful methods. 

In the discussion of these things it was suggested that the 
Board of Directors resign, and the Assembly elect a new 
Board. That as you see, was rather a radical proposal. Then 
it was perhaps thought that we should unite the two Boards 
and get one Board and have central authority, and we could 
define rights and preogatives and functions, of the Board and 


the faculty, and that this sort of revision of the authority 


vested in the Board of Trustees might clear up this question 
of administration, and in clearing it up might open the way 
to another type of organization that might prove more har- 
monious. We have been thinking that over, but we have not 
reached any conclusions. We are not prepared to indicate 
yet what the mind of the individual members of the Committee 
would be. 

I may say here that Senator Ernst and Mr. Bradley, being 
attorneys and with experience, have undertaken to make a 
study of that question and they have asked for some advice 
from someone whose name I do not recall, supposed to be a 
competent attorney—Mr. MacCarter. I understand Dr. 
Maitland Alexander has asked for three opinions from three 
attorneys. That gives you the status of that question. I 
suppose that matter will come up for further thought later. 

Among the other recommendations, it was thought that 
the President should resign. That suggestion was offered. 
and it was also offered that the President and Dr. Machen 
should both resign, and that that would relieve the situation 
and’ would open up the way. These are what you call the 
counsels of desperation. People saw the situation and said 
that is the only thing to do. If you get rid of the faculty you 
get rid of all your miseries. Other men have said that the 
Seminary would go out of existence almost if we did not have 


the counsel and ability of certainmen. That is fine. We have . 


not proceeded upon the theory that we wanted to eliminate 
anybody, but what the situation would disclose to us. I 
wanted you to know that these things have been suggested to 
us. How we feel about them?—we are not committed to any 
theory of any of these things. You need not feel disturbed by 
any more or less unfounded remarks that get around. We 
have tried to tell you what our mind is, and we thought we 


167 


would start off with some discussion of the relation of the 
seminary to the Church, as we understand it. This is the 
seminary of the Presbyterian Church. It is the oldest, and I 
presume they thought they would never have another. Sub- 
sequently another one was organized, the Western Seminary, 
and it was proper then to call it the Western, and you know 
how that strikes a man who has lived in Denver where they 
call Kansas City ‘way down Hast.’”’ So far as its organization 
is concerned, it is the same as Princeton. I assume its relation 
to the Church at large is much the same. If I am not mis- 
taken, its character is much the same. The theory seems to 
be present here that the Theological Smeinary of the Presby- 
terian Church, historically, and from every point of view, has 
been an interpreter, as we think it always ought to be, of the 
Standards of the Church, from the standpoint of logical and 
consistent Calvinism, and that its interpretation of the Re- 
formed Standards always has been in line with that. If I may 
say the word wit out misrepresentation, it has been a more or 
less restricted view of the Calvinism of the Standards set 
forth. There is another less restricted view of the Standards 
that is taken, and there is a difference of opinion perhaps or a 
form that has grown up, that what a man does when he 
accepts ordination, he accepts the Confession of Faith as 
containing the system of doctrine. The word “‘substance’’ of 
doctrine has been a debated issue. In the movements that 
have come from union and from reunion, it is inevitable that 
there should have been some stirring up of the situation, and 
perhaps a good deal of writing and speaking and some resolu- 
tions adopted, that would seem to modify slightly the point 
of view, but as we understand it, Princeton wants to stand 
definitely on its historical position, and to defend the faith as 
Princeton has always interested and understood it, and 
Princeton has no desire to be a school of what might be called 
liberal Calvinism, but a school of consistent Calvinistic 
teaching through and through. If we do not get this right we 
will be pleased to stand corrected. That is our conception 
now, although it startled some members of the Committee to 
feel that the statement was made in that sense, that the 
Seminary could not represent the entire Church, and assumed 
as I thought that through, that there was a feeling here that 
the Church was somewhat more inclusive than the interpre- 
tation of the Standards made here. In other words, the New 
School theology has come in and there is a more liberal, 
attitude toward the Confession taken by a certain portion of 
the Church, and perhaps in certain theological seminaries. 
That was a point: of view that could be tolerated as intra 
confessional, and not contra confessional. But it was not the 


168 


interpretation that Princeton desired to deliver, but Princeton 
recognized that as intra confessional, and yet not Princetonian, 
and not our point of view. I see that issue rather clearly, and 
I can see how honest and good men might differ as to whether 
they want to take this or that policy, but whether that means 
that the Seminary does not represent the whole Church in 
the sense that the Church at large might read that statement, 
I am a little at doubt. If you say to the Assembly or to the 
Church at large, in any printed document, that Princeton 
does not represent the entire Presbyterian Church, but repre- 
sents a particular interpretation of the Standards. I think 
you would open yourselves to some sort of misunderstanding 
and misconception that we need to clear up, and I think our 
discussion has not been as definitive as we might desire if we 
were going to make it public. I assume at some time that 
these things will become matters of common knowledge. We 
don’t want to misrepresent Princeton in that matter of the 
faculty. Princeton does not want to misrepresent herself 
before the Church, and be an object of continuous debate and 
discussion. She wants her position clear and definable, so 
that everybody would know, and I think that would be a 
great contribution to this whole situation throughout the 
the Church, because I suppose you don’t all know there is a 
kind of feeling over the country that somehow at Princeton 
there is something wrong. What’s the matter? And I have 
not felt at liberty to go into an exposition of the situation. 
I think we now ought to get that so clearly before us that we 
would feel we had made a contribution to the stability of the 
Princeton position. There is no member of the Committee 
that wants the Seminary to modify its position, but we want 
no misrepresentation and misunderstanding on the outside 
as to what the Seminary wants to do, and its attitude toward 
the Church. It is a large broad issue. I trust I have said 
enough to make the situation clear to you. Is there any 
contribution that this session can make toward that issue 
this morning? 
* * * * * 


Further Interlocutory Discussion at the Second 
Faculty Hearing 


Dr. Erdman: There is questioning outside, and there are 
a good many persons who think that this is a modernism 
controversy 1n some way, and that some members of the 
faculty do desire to introduce new members to the faculty 
who would represent so called modernism and liberalism. 
Our position is more conservative than that. We do desire 
to maintain the historic position of Princeton, even its 





169 


Calvinistic position as outlined. If we could affirm that, it 
would be a great help in placing Princeton in a right position 
before the Church at large. I think it would meet certain 
difficulties which have existed among us as members of the 
faculty. Not only two members of the faculty have been 
involved in the present situation. Others of us have been 
involved, and if we could believe each other and trust each 
other in an affirmation of this kind, I think it would go far 
toward relieving all difficulties. It is as follows: 

“We the members of the Faculty of Princeton Seminary do 
hereby affirm that to the best of our knowledge, no member 
of this Faculty desires to alter the historic position of the 
Seminary in its absolute loyalty to the standards of our 
Church.” 

I count it a great privilege to affirm personally that I do 
not desire to change the position, the historic position of 
Princeton Seminary, and I pledge myself anew so long as the 
few years remain that I shall do all in my power to maintain 
the well known position of Princeton Theological Seminary. 
I think all the other members of the Faculty agree in that, 
and if we could make it, it would show we really trust each 
other, as far as we know, we all agree to it. It would help us 
as a faculty, and it would put us in a good position with the 
Church at large. We do wish to maintain the historic position 
» of Princeton Seminary. It expresses not only an individual 
conviction, but confidence in one another, which is very 
desirable at this time. 

Dr. Thompson: Dr. Erdman offers that. Dr. Smith 
seconded it. 

Dr. Machen: By whom could this resolution be passed? 
It could not possibly be passed by the faculty, because we 
are not organized for business. 

Dr. Thompson: It is not a part of the records of the 
faculty, but a conference at which record is made, an ex- 
pression of opinion. We are trying to get what our state of 
mind is, and we are making inquiry as to our situation, and 
what are the remedies. If we are assured here that we all 
agree that Princeton Seminary, through its faculty, now wants 
itself understood along this line, this is an individual con- 
ference. It would not bind legally or authoritatively the 
faculty or the Board of Trustees, but it is an action of a 
friendly conference. 

Dr. Erdman: It simply expresses the feelings of our hearts. 

Dr. Thompson: If we should agree to this, I should expect 
the question never to come up in the faculty, not in the near 
future, and it certainly would not come up in this Committee. 


170 


It expresses our sense of the proprieties now. It is a con- 
viction we hold. Could we adopt it ex animo? 

Dr. Luecock: I think the resolution would express the 
attitude of the Committee. 

Dr. Thompson: If we should say that there was no dis- 
senting voice in the faculty, but all agreed that they desired 
to’ stand upon this basis, that would be a statement to the 
Assembly and to the Church of the exact position, and there 
could be no kind of misunderstanding if that statement were 
clearly made. That is what we are seeking. 

Dr. Vos: This pledge is not nearly as explicit as the pledge 
I subscribed to when I was inducted into my professorship. 
There is great ambiguity in maintaining loyalty to the 
Standards of the Presbyterian Church. In what sense does 
the average Presbyter maintain it? We know very well that 
as a matter of fact there are differences tolerated in the 
Presbyterian Church, there are Presbyters who subscribe 
to the Confession of Faith, and do it with an attitude that is 
sub-evangelical, I call it. I don’t mean Dr. Erdman has any 
such thought in his mind. ‘The word historical is very flexible. 

‘Dr. Hodge: I do not feel that this is an answer to all. It 
seems to me that everybody asserts that they desire to 
maintain the historic position of Princeton Seminary, but the 
point is really the attitude of the institution toward the 
latitude of interpretation which Dr. Vos has spoken of. I 
recently looked over again Dr. Henry Sloane Coffin’s book, 
“Some Christian Convictions,’ and some books of Dr. Merrill, 
which deny explicitly the authority of the Scriptures in matters 
of doctrine, and the supernatural element in the New Testa- 
ment, so that these men are not what Dr. Vos would call 
Arminian. It is a distinctly naturalistic interpretation of 
Christianity. These men are in good and regular standing in 
the Presbyterian Church and they have subscribed to the 
Confession of Faith, and as long as that attitude remains in 
the Presbyterian Church, and she is to tolerate that view in 
the Church, which of course is totally different from the 
New School view, totally different from the Arminian view, I 
think that the best thing that we can do is to get along the 
best we can. There may be difference of opinion as to the 
attitude of individual members toward the views that I am 
speaking of, and this affirmation that Dr. Erdman presents 
might be taken for granted. If we formally pass anything 
like this it might be misunderstood, although it might be not 
rightly so interpreted. It might be understood that we all 
were at one in fundamental attitude toward the existence of 
these views in the Church, and toward a united Church, and 





171 


there I think, there might be perhaps a very marked differ- 
ence of opinion. As long as the situation in the Church at 
large is as critical as it is at the present time, it seems to me 
it is the best thing to let the thing slide along. 

Dr. Thompson: Dr. Hodge, I have no desire to argue the 
case, but this resolution as I understand it, recognizes the 
fact of course to which you refer, and now reaffirms to this 
Committee your position as being the historical position that 
you have always maintained and that you are united in that 
judgment. That would quiet in my opinion for example, any 
disposition out in the Church to wonder about Princeton. 
Princeton logically stands for what she stood for, and this 
Committee has said so, and their inquiry develops the fact. 
Would it not be well to say that to the Church, or shall we 
put on the soft pedal, and say nothing about the attitude of 
the Seminary? Are we to say there was no expression of 
opinion at this conference? Look at the Committee now. 
What must the Committee do when it reports to the Assem- 
bly? Shall we say to the Assembly that we found that 
Princeton Seminary faculty was one in maintaining and sus- 
taining their historical position with no changes of interpre- 
tation? 

Dr. Thompson: Let me speak to the question you raise. 
The thing that this Committee has in mind is the situation of 
the Seminary as related to the Church at large. Here’s a 
Church covering 48 States, with nearly two million members, 
10,000 preachers and 12 Seminaries. The Assembly has 
appointed a Committee of inquiry, and we do not want 
Princeton to be misrepresented outside. That is the general 
issue. We are trying to get over a thought that will quiet 
the mind of the Church as to your exact position. That does 
not involve any other controversy outside the Seminary. It 
defines the position of the Seminary on the question to which 

you speak, recognizing the difference of opinion that may 
legitimately exist within the Faculty, we know of no desire to 
change our allegiance or our testimony. If it does any good 
to you brethren, it won’t hurt us. We all recognize without 
saying it, that there might be slight differences. There can- 
not be contra confessional differences without some trouble. 
We are doing this for the sake of testifying to the Church that 
Princeton Seminary is just where she has been for some time, 
and whatever differences we see, do not change the attitude 
of the Seminary. These differences in the Board of Directors 
might have caused you some anxiety, but it hasn’t changed 
your position as teachers of theology. The great need of the 
Seminary is to be a teacher and a trainer of preachers, and to 
stand as the interpreter of her standards. This is a fountain 


172 


of theological learning and you are the exponents of the 
Church. Your great function is not to sustain the faculty but 
to teach students, and this institution is here because we want 
to train young men, not because we want to find a place for 
older men. Weare here bringing out annually a group of men 
into the ministry, by research, and teaching and advice and 
counsel. It is a fountain of learning, gathering up its research, 
and its teaching, and its advice and counsel, and giving it to 
young men as to the holy calling of the ministry, and you 
turn them over to the Presbyteries and you say: See if these 
are fitted for the ministry? Whether it 1s desirable at this 
juncture for this Committee to report on the State of the 
Seminary, that is the issue as I see it. If it is not desirable, 
we can go ahead and it will be nothing to us. We put it up to 
you to say whether it is desirable to do that. 

Dr. Armstrong: I like very much the way in which you 
have phrased this matter. It seems to me we can say ex- 
actly what you have proposed. Recognizing legitimate 
difference of opinion, we all desire to affirm our loyalty to the 
historic position of the Seminary in respect to the Standards 
of the Church. I think the positive statement rather than 
the negative would be wiser and would cover the desire’ of 
all of us more fully than the negative statement. “You have 
phrased it in a way that appeals to me. 


Dr. Erdman: My resolution goes further and expresses 
confidence in one another, which I would like to do. .I have 
thought that some members of the faculty thought that some 
of us could not do that. I should like to affirm not only my 
own belief and desire to maintain the position of the Sem- 
inary, but to have it affirmed that we all trust each other. I 
should like to ask Dr. Machen, is there any particular doctrine 
on which he thinks we differ? I have been here 20 years, and 
I don’t know of any doctrine where we differ. I really believe 
that some members of the faculty have felt that, for instance, . 
I would like to change the historic position of the seminary 
and would like to introduce other men. 


Dr. Thompson: That turns not on aJlegiance to doctrines, 
but on a question as to what the historic position of the 
seminary has been. 

Dr. Machen: I feel that there is a great difference of 
opinion as to the historic position of this seminary, its attitude 
toward doctrinal controversy, and a great many things. I 
am not making or calling in question at all the loyalty of any 
member of the faculty to the Confession of Faith. There has 
been great confusion in introducing that question as though 
it were a question here. I still feel we should leave indefinite 





173 


the question of difference of opinion. As to specifically the 
historic position of Princeton Seminary, I think there is 
difference of opinion. We should find it is rather great, and 
while I don’t like the use of the word “legitimate” in the 
clause, | am frank to say, because I think that word is capable 
of misunderstanding, I hold that my view of the historic 
position of Princeton Seminary is in one sense the only 
legitimate view, the only view which is in accordance with 
the facts, and so I don’t like the ambiguity in that word. I 
should prefer to see the clarifying clause there. We cannot 
determine here how great is the divergence with regard to the 
question of the historic position of Princeton Seminary. I 
should be inclined to affirm, that no matter how widely they 
differ from me as to what the historic position is, that these 
colleagues, as far as my observation goes, are desiring honestly 
to maintain what they hold the historic position of Princeton 
Seminary to be. 


Dr. Hodge: My attitude is precisely that. I don’t feel 
like doing it, but put it the way Dr. Machen puts it. 

. Dr. Thompson: I believe Dr. Machen is hot footed when 
it comes to the intellectual statement of controversy. 

Dr. Erdman: I am not referring to Princeton’s attitude 
toward controversy, but the historic position of the seminary 
toward our Confession of Faith. The impression abroad is 
that there is a desire on the part of some of us here to introduce 
so called modernism. None of us want to do that thing. If 
we could state it, it would be a great help. Our attitude to 
doctrinal controversy would be hard to define, but our 
attitude as a Seminary toward revealed truth as set forth in 
the Confession of Faith, seems to be a unit, a remarkable 
unity. We all agree as to the doctrines of our Church. What 
we want to say is that we all agree to these doctrines as set 
forth in our Confession, and as held by Princeton during 
these years, and we are willing to trust each other in that 
particular. As to our attitude toward controversy, that is a 
larger question, which we could not settle here. If we could 
settle our attitude toward doctrines as set forth in our 
Standards—we want them maintained, and we want that 
stated to the Church. 

Dr. Hodge: Who does that? Anybody? 

Dr. Erdman: It is a common statement that we want to 
bring modernism into this faculty. That is a general state- 
ment all over the Church. 

Dr. Lueccock: Dr. Machen, a question. Is there an area of 
opinion within which the members of the faculty may hold 
difference of view, and all of them regard each other as 
within the Princeton position? 


174. 


Dr. Machen: Certainly there is an area of difference, but 
I think they are not prepared to determine that the differences 
do not go beyond that area. That is my point. I do hold 
that with regard to a good many matters, the relation between 
life and doctrine, the attitude and place where emphasis is 
to be put—there is great divergence of opinion as to what 
the position of the seminary is. I hold also, although I am 
quite ready to affirm that I do not believe any of the members 
of this body are trying to introduce modernism into this 
faculty, I do hold that the optimistic attitude of certain 
members of the faculty toward the condition of the Church 
at large would, if it was unchecked, soon introduce modernism 
into this faculty. That is my position. I am perfectly ready 
to affirm my belief in the desire of everyone to maintain what 
he conceives the historic position of the seminary to be, and 
to exclude modernism, but I do hold there is very great 
difference of opinion as to what the historic position of 
Princeton Seminary is, and what course must be adopted to 
exclude modernism from the seminary. I believe that our 
relations will be better if we frankly recognize such difference 
of opinion, and I am not clear in the course of this debate 
whether Dr. Erdman, the mover of the resolution, or anyone 
else here, has said anything which would militate against the 
amendment which I am proposing, “that whatever difference 
of opinion may prevail in the faculty as to what the historic 
position of Princeton Seminary is, all the members of the 
faculty, ete.” 

Dr. Whallon: How assuring would that be to the Church? 

Dr. Machen: It is dangerous to assume that there are no 
divergences of opinion here. We can avoid when we recognize 
each other’s opinion, personal unpleasantness. I think it would 
be an absolute misrepresentation of the condition at Princeton 
to say to the Church that there is no serious divergence of 
opinion, because I think there is, and I do not believe in 
representing to the Church what is not so. I am not arousing 
any one’s fears. I am leaving that entirely open. One person 
may think the divergence is less serious than I think it is. I 
am recognizing the fact that we may hold different views as 
to what the historic position of the seminary is, but that we 
all agree that as far as we can see, we are all endeavoring to 
maintain the position as we see it. 

Dr. Erdman: I really don’t understand what Dr. Machen 
means by difference of opinion. I don’t think we do agree as 
to ecclesiastical matters, how we ought to deal with this or 
that matter. We stand for the great corporate testimony 
here, a rather unique and united testimony as a faculty. If 








175 


we could state that to the world—I don’t think that is an 
ambiguous thing. What is the great difference between us 
doctrinally? If we are united, let us state it to the world. 
We do feel we are united in our attitude to the truth and our 
desire to propagate the truth as Princeton has stood for it, 
conservative, orthodox, Calvinistic. It would draw our 
alumni together, and it would show where we stand. If we 
qualify it, it makes it too weak to amount to anything. 

Dr. Hodge: There is an ambiguity now that I think could 
be cleared up easily, and the form of the resolution as Dr. 
Machen makes it, clears it up. If it is not desired to put it 
in that form, if Dr. Erdman wishes to have it inserted that 
all the faculty are in harmony with the Standards of the 
Church, I should think that there should be no objection to 
such a resolution at all. The minute you introduce the 
phrase “historic position” and exclude matters of ecclesi- 
astical polity, you introduce ambiguity. I don’t think the 
faculty agreed with Dr. B. B. Warfield on the Cumberland 
Union. If you are going to use that phrase, you cannot ex- 
clude all- these wider questions upon which there are differ- 
ences. If we are going to make this categorical affirmation, 
let’s say—confine it to the fact that the Committee found all 
the members of the faculty in harmony with the Confession 
of Faith. If you are going to introduce the phrase ‘‘historical 
position of Princeton Seminary,’’ introduce Dr. Machen’s 
modification. 

Dr. Erdman: I specified the historical position as related 
to the Standards of the Church. | 

Dr. Luecock: Do you agree that in respect to doctrine 
alone the faculty is united? 

Dr. Machen: No sir, I would not agree to that. I am not 
willing to sit here in judgment upon the doctrinal loyalty of 
my colleagues. I do not like that method. If I were going 
to give an opinion about the doctrinal position of any col- 
league of mine, I should have to read everything he had 
written, and I would not like to undertake the business. 
There is no greater harm done in the Church than by this 
sort of passing upon the doctrinal position of colleagues in 
this way. I don’t like that business exactly. 

Dr. Vos: I had a dread of this word “historical position.” 
T have the same dread of it that I have of “‘system of doctrine”’ 
which opens a wide door for the slipping in of all kinds of 
heresy. I would be willing to vote for that if it were defined 
or qualified. The “historical position as it is outlined in the 
Plan of the Seminary and acknowledged by all the teachers 
in it at their induction into office.”’ 


176 


Dr. Thompson: This seems to be the exact statement of 
the resolution as we are thinking of it: 

‘We, the members of the faculty of Princeton Theological 
Seminary, do hereby affirm that to the best of our knowledge, 
all the members of this faculty desire to maintain their 
absolute loyalty to the standards of the Presbyterian Church 
in the Usv Ae | 

Dr. Allis: I rise simply to state that we desire to affirm, 
and not add this clause with regard to other members of the 
faculty. It has developed that there is a great deal of opinion 
as to what this phraseology will mean and exactly how it will 
be understood. It has developed in the course of the hearing, 
that there are differences of opinion as to the attitude which 
members of the faculty, as presbyters, should take and so 
forth, and consequently it seems to me that if we are to be 
asked to affirm, not merely our own loyalty, but our con- 
ception with regard to the loyalty of the members of the 
faculty, we should clarify our position. If we could as Dr. 
Armstrong intimated, adopt some statement as proposed-by 
you, a positive statement of what the position of the faculty 
is and ought to be, we could make it simpler and positive and 
‘to the point. 

Dr. Loetscher: I think there is no objection to that. We 
are all of one mind. The moment we try to interpret what 
in the long course of 100 years this seminary has said through 
this, that or the other influential professor, we would get into 
a nebulous region. It would be highly important to qualify 
our statement by some such parenthetical clause as Dr. 
Machen suggested. I have studied a great deal in the history 
of our Church, and there are many features of that historic 
position that are unknown to me even now, and I may say 
to some of my colleagues, that if we are going to introduce 
that phrase, we will have to have some kind of qualification. 
The safe thing is to omit it. I think we can all agree on this. 

Dr. Thompson: Let there be clear understanding that 
this is not a formal vote; it is a conference, in which we are 
expressing our sense of what the situation is, so that the 
Committee could have a basis on which to make its report to 
the Assembly without any hesitancy or uncertainty. It is 
an informing thing to us, rather than a formal vote of the 
faculty. 

Dr. Hodge: I think two things have emerged from the © 
discussion. One thing is that Dr. Erdman has fears, or has 
asserted that they are spread through the Church, the idea 
that he, perhaps, wishes to introduce modernism. I did not 
suppose that such an opinion was very widespread, but still 





Uy 


he wants that allayed. Then the second point that has 
emerged is, that if we express ourselves as he originally 
meant, there is not unanimity. After this discussion, I should 
like to suggest to the Committee very respectfully, if, without 
the faculty passing any such resolution at all, the Committee 
would state to the Church on the basis of this discussion, 
with the assent of all here, that they found that the faculty 
of Princeton Seminary, every member was loyal to the 
Standards of the Church. That would answer two purposes; 
first, it would remove the ambiguities of any resolution we 
might try to form; second, it would allay any fears that are 
in Prof. Erdman’s mind, that anybody in the Church may 
suppose he is not loyal to the Standards. It would be a 
declaration of the Committee on the basis of the discussion 
they have had, without asking the faculty to pass any resolu- 
tion which involves first, a view of the historic position of the 
Seminary, and the understanding of what that is, and second, 
in setting no judgment of one member of the faculty upon 
another member of the faculty. I don’t see why the Com- 
mittee cannot satisfy everything that Dr. Erdman wishes by 
making such a statement to the Assembly without asking 
the faculty to go on record formally. 

Dr. Machen: I'am inclined to raise no objection to the 
resolution as last read. I do not agree with Dr. Hodge’s 
recommendation to the Committee. I would like to have 
the resolution read once more. I do want it to be clear that 
anything I am assenting to is not an interpretation of this. 


Dr. Luccock: May the Committee state that the faculty 
believe of each other that they are loyal to the Standards? 


Dr. Machen: That is what I object to. I do not hold to 
that. 


Dr. Thompson: We are not disposed to go into technical 
details. We do not want to spend our time in an academic 
discussion of subsidiary issues, because we feel that these will 
solve themselves, or abide or continue, and they may not be 
a source of disturbance to the Seminary or the Church. We 
are here in the interests of the adjustment of the seminary 
itself and to the Church. In view of statements that have 
been made here, Dr. Machen ought to have an opportunity to 
explain or define his own position concerning the Boards and | 
Agencies of the Church. I happen to be Moderator and I 
happen to be travelling a good deal. I find out that people 
are saying, You are chairman of the Committee; what do they 
mean by their attitude toward the Boards and Agencies. 
They somehow feel, that Dr. Machen has an attitude toward 
the Board and Agencies, in his public works, that is pretty 


178 


deliberate, and that may or may not represent the Church. 
Dr. Machen has said in his books, printed certain things 
about his attitude, that I wonder whether Dr. Machen would 
be willing to say something to this Committee for its enlight- 
enment on that thing. I may add that reference has been 
made to it here. Demand has been made for proof. I don’t 
know that we demand proof, but on what ground are state- 
ments of that sort made? Are the statements an expression 
of personal opinion, or statements of fact? I must agree, in 
reading, as I have read, these two books on the table, that 
I have run into a good many statements that I have marked, 
and said, Is this a dogmatic statement of fact, or an expression 
of opinion on the part of the writer? I have sometimes felt 
the form made it rather a dogmatic statement of fact, with no 
room for difference of opinion. I want to see whether I was 
doing him an injustice or he was doing himself an injustice 
whether there was some unconscious difference there. There 
are people who feel that the General Assembly has authorized 
these Boards, and is operating them, and there is a legitimate 
way of doing these things, and probably these are more or 
less indirect statements about them, but it does a damage 
that cannot be repaired. Well now, if statements like that go 
unchallenged, everybody has to be debating this issue. What 
method of relief is there? Here are statements made, and I 
think there are people who criticize Prof. Machen’s position 
on that ground, and it would be fair for us to ask him— 

Dr. Machen: I would be glad to make a statement to the 
Committee. I feel hampered by not having perhaps an idea 
of what statement specifically it is. 

Dr. Thompson then read from ‘‘What is Faith” p. 46, and 
“Christianity and Liberalism’’ p. 58. 

Dr. Machen: Mr. Moderator, what I have said in my 
books of course are altogether matters of opinion. They are 
my honest opinion and I recognize that other persons have a 
different opinion, but that does not mean that I hold that we 
both have a right to our opinion in the sense that they are 
both true. Any man that states a thing, states it not as some- 
thing that is true to him, but true to everybody. Of course 
they are matters of my opinion. People can take them or 
leave them. My books are matters of my opinion. 

Dr. Thompson: You made some reference to the difference 
between a professor and an executive or administrative 
officer, whether a man in a theological seminary as professor 
in speaking, is to be treated any different from what a private 
run-of-mine preacher would do out in the Church. 

Dr. Machen: Essentially not sir. I do think there is 
freedom unless it can be shown that what a professor says is 


179 


contrary to the Confession of Faith, in which case he is not 
to be dealt with more strictly than any ordinary minister, 
except that the institution might object to his violation of his 
pledge, his installation pledge, which is stricter than the 
ordination pledge of ministers. But of course it does seem 
to me that he is amenable in just the same way as any other 
minister is essentially. Mr. Moderator, I have listened to 
your reading of this passage in which the word anti-theistic 
occurs, and you will observe that I have said anti-theistic or 
agnostic modernism. I think that modernism is very much 
more generally agnostic than it is atheistic. Atheism means 
the dignified denial of the existence of a personal God, and I 
do hold that that is comparatively rare, but I do hold that 
the modernism of the day, taken generally is anti-theistic, 
is non-theistic. I am speaking in the most general way with 
regard to the condition of the whole world, and it is my very 
firm conviction that there is very widespread in the world 
today, and in the Presbyterian Church in the U. 8. A. a type 
of thought which is essentially opposed to a clear belief in a 
personal God. I do hold that these things are logically 
related, but I also desire to say that one way in which that 
book “Christianity and Liberalism’? has been generally 
misunderstood is in this way, as though I were holding that 
this individual or that maintains the whole logically con- 
catenated type of belief that I have designated as modernism. 
I am trying to show the logical relations between two mutually 
exclusive types of religion in the world. I have avoided 
mentioning individuals, or discussing the question as to how 
clearly any individual maintains in all its logical conclusions 
the type called modernism. 

Dr. Thompson: I think that is the point of the man out 
in the territory. He says, I didn’t know there are such folks. 

Dr. Machen: I do feel that that is my firm conviction. 
I know that that conviction subjects me to a good deal of 
criticism, because men who hold a grave view of the state of 
the Church, and that a great revival is imperatively necessary, 
have always been very unpopular in the Church. Of course 
it is a matter of opinion for any one to say my very grave 
view is in accordance with the facts or not. I honestly hold 
it is, and that it is the most important duty for every man 
who holds that view to warn the Church as to the very great 
danger. That is a question of diagnosis, and it is based upon 
my conception of the gravity of the great issues. I do not 
look upon this business of modernism as an isolated thing 
that crops up here and there, but I look upon it as one mani- 
festation in our Church of a mighty force that has been in 
the world for 150 years, which has very largely engulfed the 


180 


organized Christian life of Europe and Great Britain, which 
if it is altogether excluded from our Presbyterian Church, 
could be so only by nothing short of a miracle. I am looking 
upon the condition of the world as a whole, and I am con- 
vinced the Church is passing through one of the two or three 
deadly conflicts in the course of its long history, and as in 
the case of the previous ones, it is being fought within the 
bounds of the Church and not outside. You have got to put 
yourself into my state of mind not about the conditions in 
any one Church or any one religion, but in the world as a 
whole. 

Dr. Thompson: Inreading both your books, the one feeling 
I had was that Machen had not quite set up the vigor and 
virility of the power of Christ in the world, as he has set up 
the disease. After I read your books that is my personal 
point of view. I have got greater faith in the virility of the 
Christian belief than you express. It was a little less vigorous 
than a man of your ability might express. 

Dr. Greene: I cannot by any possibility make a speech 
this morning, but neither can I by any possibility refrain 
from saying that after teaching this subject to which Dr. 
~ Machen refers, for a good many years, I am simply compelled 
to say this morning that I endorse every word and every 
syllable of what he has tried to say, and I concur in his 
opinions as to the danger and prevalence of the modernistic 
view. 

Dr. Thompson: The Boards and Agencies—what sort of 
support have you got for making these statements? How do 
you want us to accept them? 

Dr. Machen: I was referring to the state of the Church 
as a whole prior to this much criticized, so-called fundamen- 
talist controversy, to use the term which I very greatly 
dishke. It is my: firm conviction that there was in the 
Church an over emphasis of machinery and organization, the 
notion that by proper organization of Christian forces, we 
shall save the world. I think the Church needs a great season 
of profound repentance and heart searching, and it is for this 
that I pray, and I believe when that great revival comes, 
that one of the things that it will bring most clearly is the 
cessation of all the opposition between life and doctrine which 
we now find, and people will be deeply interested in getting 
into their minds the content of the Gospel message first for 
themselves, and then for propagation to others, a tremendous 
revival of interest in what is called by its opponents, doctrine. 
I was speaking in very general terms about Boards and 
Agencies. It is my conviction that the Boards and Agencies 
of the Presbyterian Church are not representative of the 





181 


Church as a whole today. I do not think that they are fairly 
representative of the Church. 


Dr. Thompson: What remedy have you for that? 

Dr. Machen: I have simply greater wisdom in the choice 
of men who are elected by the General Assembly to the 
Boards, and the relinquishment by the General Assembly of 
the idea that everyone who is loyal to the Confession of Faith 
is therefore a safe person to place upon one of the Boards or 
Agencies. Something more than loyalty to the Confession is 
necessary. There must also be a clear conception of the 
tremendous gravity of this doctrinal issue. I hold that in 
that straight-forward manner, the confidence of the Church, 
the conservative part, may be restored. 

Dr. Hodge: I received not more than a year and a half 
ago under the letterhead of the Board of National Missions, 
a series of tracts which I have now thrown away and for- 
gotten, so that I cannot cite them for you. But they were 
modernistic in the extreme and worse than modernistic. I 
don’t think they were written by members of the Presbyterian 
Church but they were sent to me in an envelope from that 
office and apparently with the endorsement of that office. 

Dr. Luccock: I would like to say that I quite endorse 
everything Dr. Machen has said about the need of revival, 
and the importance of men embued with the evangelistic 
spirit in the right sense of the word in the Boards. I feel 
that Dr. Machen has not made himself understood, and has 
made himself misunderstood by statements which do not 
express what, from hearing him here today, seem to be his 
real opinions. For example, ‘‘there are a few members of the 
Boards who are evangelical.’’ That is an extreme statement. 

Dr. Machen: I am convinced of that. You will observe 
that I have said ‘‘the conservative or evangelical party in the 
Church.” 


Dr. Luccock: That is the point. In what sense do you 
use the word “‘evangelical’’? 

Dr. Machen: I think every party name is question begging. 
It is almost bound to be. We talk about the liberal party 
in the Church. Of course I maintain I am as liberal as any 
member of the liberal party. I try to call them by the name 
by which they are inclined to call themselves, and convey my 
meaning. What I mean by the conservative or evangelical 
party in the Church, is something more than a collection of 
all the men who are in their beliefs conservative and evan- 
gelical, but the men who take the same grave view that I 
do, and have in a way acted together in the last few years 
in the Church. There are a great many men who are in 


182 


their own beliefs as evangelical as those who have formed 
this party, if you may call it so. I do feel that there is a 
great lack of representation of the men who have taken the 
grave view of the issues in the Church that Dr. Macartney 
takes and that I take. A great lack of representation of that 
very large body of persons in the Church upon the Boards and 
Agencies. I think in some Boards the representation of that 
eroup of persons is extremely slight. JI maintain from our 
port of view there is no real representation. 

Dr. Luceock: Do you feel it is legitimate to assume that 
the party that is led as you say by Dr. Macartney and 
yourself is the only evangelical group in the Church? 

Dr. Machen: No sir, I try to maintain and say that that 
isnotso. I am talking about a stand on ecclesiastical policies. 
I did not say I was a leader in this party, for I certainly am 
not, but a very humble follower, and I certainly say. that 
word of myself, but I do hold that there are other men in 
the Church who are entirely evangelical in their beliefs, but 
who really do not know the tremendous danger of the Pres- 
byterian Church at the present moment, who underestimate 
the forces that are undermining the Church. Modernism is 
in the Church in a very much more dangerous way in the 
preaching of a great many men who would not think of 
denying the Virgin Birth of Christ or the substitutionary 
atonement, but who just in their preaching from day to day 
have left these things out, who have just drifted in a great 
current. J hold a tremendously grave view of the situation 
in the Church. There are a great many people who believe 
altogether every word in the Bible, and who do not see that 
the 1283 signers of the Auburn affirmation have signed a 
document which is hostile to Christianity at its very roots, 
a statement which in its logical outcome attacks Christianity 
at its roots. Men do not see that. I have tried to convince 
them of the danger in the small sphere of my influence. 
The situation in the Church is like this. There are a great 
many persons in the Church who are definitely modernistie. 
I hold that, that these signers of the Affirmation know what 
they deny. ‘There is a body of persons in the Church who 
know the extreme gravity of the issue, and a large body in 
the Church, evangelical in their own beliefs, whose eyes from 
my point of view, are closed to the tremendous danger of the 
Presbyterian Church, which is just on the point of going over 
the falls, in my opinion, and we who are trying to warn the 
people in the Church of the danger of course are unpopular, 
but with our view of the danger, our action is absolutely 
necessary as we stand in the presence of God. 

Dr. Thompson: Conservative and evangelical party—does 
that mean two parties or one? 





183 


Dr. Machen: One party. 

Dr. Thompson: Conservative and evangelical are identi- 
fied. You say there are a lot of people who think they are— 
but you doubt it, because they are not as careful in their 
definition as others. I agree with your diagnosis a moment 
ago, that the rattling of machinery is no proof of spirituality. 
On the question of the Boards, I cannot call the roll of the 
Foreign or National Boards, but every Presbyterian minister 
knows these men, and he says, Here’s men talking about our 
Board and Agencies. I know two or three men on the Boards. 
I wonder if that’s so? Why did he make that statement? 
They begin to wonder whether your statements are at all in 
accordance with the facts, and I think your statement is not 
adequate to the situation. You have made a definite state- 
ment in three or four lines that ought to have an explanation 
like you gave here now. It clears the air somewhat. I think 
that statement is rather too pointed to have clearness or 
power init. It looks like an attack when it is not meant for 
an attack. It is not an explanation of a situation in which you 
regard grave issues to be pending. You are trying to state 
your mind that it is a grave issue, and the agencies of the 
Church are not quite representative. The Board of Foreign 
Missions have got a lot of men like myself, advanced in years, 
they were put on years before the controversy arose, ahd now 
with the lapse of years, these men have got a little soft and 
easy on the doctrines. That is our misfortune. I would 
’ hesitate to believe what one might infer from these state- 
ments, that the organized agencies had been consciously 
‘toward the side of modernism or liberalism, and away from the 
side of conservatism and evangelicism. If we have made 
mistakes, and we doubtless have, there is a way of correcting 
them with some courage and faith by a process of calling 
attention to a situation as you have done, but I think your 
statement has been a little inadequate. I think you have to 
defend yourself a little against that. 

Dr. Machen: My view of the faults of the members is a 
light one. I take rather a grave view of the faults that need 
to be corrected in the Boards. In the Board of National 
Missions there are 14 at present, according to the Minutes 
of the General Asembly, 14 ministers on the governing Board. 
Six or nearly one-half are actual signers of the Auburn affirma- 
tion, and a great number of the others are persons who have 
not taken any doctrinal pledge at all. They have not sub- 
scribed in any way to our confession. I have not confidence 
in a Board that is governed that way. When you have 
nearly half of the clerical membership of that Board who 
actually signed this Auburn affirmation, which seems to me 


184 


; hostile to Christianity at its very roots, and when there are 
certainly many in the Church who did not sign it because of 
the impropriety, my fears are very serious for its government. 

Dr. Thompson: If you would put that in the statement, 
you would put the Board on the defensive instead of putting 
Machen on the defensive. 

Dr. Machen: Of course I think it would be quite out of 
place to discuss that in detail. 

Dr. Hodge: Is it the view of this Committee that every 
professor in every theological seminary or in this institution, 
must have full confidence in every Board of the Presbyterian 
Church at the present time? 

Dr. Thompson: No, there is no question about that. I am 
thinking about the state of mind in the Church. They say 
outside that these things are unwarranted, and that puts Dr. 
Machen on the defensive, and he gives us a statement here 
which has not been made public so far as I know. I think if . 
he had, many people would have said, That puts the Board 
on the defensive. 

Dr. Loetscher: He has just given us an illustration of one 
of our great difficulties. Evangelical, as he now defines it, is 
not one who has been understood to be evangelical in the 
historical sense of the word, but one who must have an 
adequate conception of the gravity of the present crisis. I 
have no objection at all to his using the word in that sense, 
but I do feel if that is to be the meaning of a technical term 
that has had a long history, it ought to be clarified a little. 
In our invitations to members of the Presbyterian ministry, 
we have been altogether too free in our application of labels, 
and technical nomenclatures, and this has brought us into 
trouble. Some of us looking at these terms historically, feel 
we cannot, without qualification, accept this new interpreta- 
tion of historical definitions. We don’t object to their being ~ 
used by anybody who cares to put a new interpretation upon 
an old phrase. Historically, evangelical has not meant in the 
nature of the case, it could not have meant one who was 
adequately impressed concerning the gravity that arose in 
the year of grace, 1920. It is this which has caused mis- 
understandings among us. 

Dr. Machen: Misunderstanding has arisen in Dr. Loet- 
scher’s address. I tried to explain in the early part of my 
remarks here that I spoke in that passage about an evan- 
gelical party, and I entered into an interpretation of eyvan- 
gelical. I was using the term all the time concerning a set of 
ecclesiastical measures and I tried to express by my use of 
two terms that there was some difficulty about the termi- 
nology. It is the difficulty of getting a name. 





185 


Dr. Thompson: There have been people who have said 
that that expression about 50% of the money given was 
expended for the propagation of error in some form—they 
wonder if that is true. What evidence is there that 50% of 
our missionary monies are expended off the evangelical 
platform? 

Dr. Machen: I cannot affirm how much goes to the propa- 
gation of error or the propagation of truth. I was not aware 
that any representative of the Foreign Board would maintain 
that every cent of the money contributed goes to the propa- 
gation of truth. 

Dr. Thompson: You may be right about that. The 
impression that the Presbyterian minister gets is that a pro- 
fessor in Princeton discussed his own Church. 

Dr. Whallon: You heard last night when Dr. Stevenson 
made this statement that at a faculty meeting, in discussing 
the three men whose names were suggested, that you came to 
this as a final sentence, your objection to these men was 
because they were not Christians. 

Dr. Machen: I of course am bound to say that I made a 
statement with regard to that in my last statement. I tried 
to put there my point of view, my lack of memory with regard 
to the assertion that these three men are not Christians. 
When we are considering the matter of modernism and 
evangelicalism, when it comes to that contrast, it 1s not a 
question of difference of opinion within Christianity, but it is, 
a question of Christianity and non-Christianity. Dr. Steven- 
son, according to his statement of things which were written 
down afterwards—I wish he had presented his notes of that 
to me that I might say whether it was correct, and that when 
we are talking about personalities, we might have an oppor- 
tunity to clarify among ourselves in a brotherly way exactly 
what we have said and what we meant. I think it is a very 
grave situation indeed if our facutly meetings are to be 
carried on in that way. We must give up all discussions of a 
frank character if that kind of a report two or three years after- 
wards is given. If we say a thing which others regard as un- 
just, they should bring their view of its injustice to the man 
who has made the statement that there might be an oppor- 
tunity for him to record exactly what he desired to say. 

Dr. Whallon: I wanted to have your statement about it. 
You do not recall making such a statement? 

Dr. Machen: I recall some such statement. I do not recall 
whether I used these exact words. I was trying to guard 
against the opinion that in our discussions we were objecting 
to people because they were not Calvinists. JI would not 
object to a Methodist in our Chapel, but that our question 


186 


is something that is deeper than that. If an impression is 
conveyed that I am making any specifie references to these 
three men, I do desire to say that I do not want to affirm of 
these gentlemen that they are not Christians. I am asfar 
from that as anything in the world. 

Dr. Luccock: Is it your recollection that you objected to 
the invitation to these men on the ground that they are not 
evangelical in the sense that you define evangelical? 

Dr. Machen: I cannot remember the exact words of my 
objection. 

Dr. Luccock: You did object to them? 

Dr. Machen: I voted against the report of the Com- - 
mittee. The minutes will correct me in regard to that. Of 
course my attitude toward the invitation of gentlemen to our 
chapel is that it is a matter that is purely within the judgment 
of the faculty, that the faculty may have someone else it 
prefers to invite. It may not know about the qualifications 
for this service of some of these gentlemen. But I certainly do 
regret any impression that might be left in the minds of the 
Committee that that is my view of these three gentlemen. 

Dr. Loetscher: The whole thing is pretty clear in my 
mind. I recall distinctly what a cold chill was sent down my 
back when that statement fell from his lips, as he took 
occasion to say much more. I think he was using this charac- 
terization not with respect to the individual relationship of 
these men to God, but from the standpoint of his interpre- 
tation of what their principles of theology would lead to. 

Dr. Thompson: You can see that if we went on taking up 
phrase upon phrase that has been published or heard, that 
this discussion would take us on to the cemetery before we 
would reach a conclusion. It is an almost interminable 
thing. I regard that as largely academic myself. What I 
have in mind is that it is almost impossible for the non- 
academic world to understand the academic mind. A pro- 
fessor of mine at Ohio State went to a constitutional conven- 
tion, and when he came back he said, Now I begin to under- 
stand what you mean by the academic mind. There is some- 
thing in Machen’s point of view that is different from the 
man plowing in the field. When we who are preachers and 
elders, who are the responsible people, if this controversy 
could be confined to us, we would be in the logical direction of 
progress. We don’t always understand each other, we begin 
to shave definitions. My grand-daughter said to me, Grad- 
father, I don’t like the dictionary. I said, What’s the matter? 
It doesn’t explain anything, it just puts one word up against 
another. We must reach a conclusion—we must reach an 
end, and I am very appreciative of the fine spirit in which 
you have listened to us as a Committee. 





187 


Dr. Wilson: I for one would like to express my thanks to 
the Committee for the courtesy with which they have treated 
us all, at least myself. 


cS *% * *k * 





Ye 


ty 


Ny art 
Nie 


A 
FEAR, } 
ee 
Se, 





Princeton Theologi 


















































Ses he BS 
foie 1 4 ee Se 


et. 
v 
i 





